All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Millton Miller <miltonm@bga.com>
To: "K.Prasad" <prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@au1.ibm.com>,
	shaggy@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	David Gibson <dwg@au1.ibm.com>,
	"linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
	Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"K.Prasad" <prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Subject: [Patch 1/4] Allow arch-specific cleanup before breakpoint unregistration
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 06:39:19 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1274787559_8162@mail4.comsite.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100525091356.GB29003@in.ibm.com>

On Tue, 25 May 2010 at 14:43:56 +0530, K.Prasad wrote:
> Certain architectures (such as PowerPC Book III S) have a need to cleanup
> data-structures before the breakpoint is unregistered. This patch introduces
> an arch-specific hook in release_bp_slot() along with a weak definition in
> the form of a stub funciton.
> 
> Signed-off-by: K.Prasad <prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>  kernel/hw_breakpoint.c |   12 ++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)


My understanding is weak function definitions must appear in a different C
file than their call sites to work on some toolchains.

Andrew, can you confirm the above statement?

> Index: linux-2.6.ppc64_test/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.ppc64_test.orig/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c
> +++ linux-2.6.ppc64_test/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c
> @@ -242,6 +242,17 @@  toggle_bp_slot(struct perf_event *bp, bo
>  }
>  
>  /*
> + * Function to perform processor-specific cleanup during unregistration
> + */
> +__weak void arch_unregister_hw_breakpoint(struct perf_event *bp)
> +{
> +	/*
> +	 * A weak stub function here for those archs that don't define
> +	 * it inside arch/.../kernel/hw_breakpoint.c
> +	 */
> +}
> +
> +/*
>   * Contraints to check before allowing this new breakpoint counter:
>   *
>   *  == Non-pinned counter == (Considered as pinned for now)
> @@ -339,6 +350,7 @@  void release_bp_slot(struct perf_event *
>  {
>  	mutex_lock(&nr_bp_mutex);
>  
> +	arch_unregister_hw_breakpoint(bp);
>  	__release_bp_slot(bp);
>  
>  	mutex_unlock(&nr_bp_mutex);
> 


Since the weak version is empty, should it just be delcared (in
a header, put the comment there) and not defined?

milton

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Millton Miller <miltonm@bga.com>
To: "K.Prasad" <prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@au1.ibm.com>,
	shaggy@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
	David Gibson <dwg@au1.ibm.com>,
	Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
	"K.Prasad" <prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>,
	"linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: [Patch 1/4] Allow arch-specific cleanup before breakpoint unregistration
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 06:39:19 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1274787559_8162@mail4.comsite.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100525091356.GB29003@in.ibm.com>

On Tue, 25 May 2010 at 14:43:56 +0530, K.Prasad wrote:
> Certain architectures (such as PowerPC Book III S) have a need to cleanup
> data-structures before the breakpoint is unregistered. This patch introduces
> an arch-specific hook in release_bp_slot() along with a weak definition in
> the form of a stub funciton.
> 
> Signed-off-by: K.Prasad <prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>  kernel/hw_breakpoint.c |   12 ++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)


My understanding is weak function definitions must appear in a different C
file than their call sites to work on some toolchains.

Andrew, can you confirm the above statement?

> Index: linux-2.6.ppc64_test/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.ppc64_test.orig/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c
> +++ linux-2.6.ppc64_test/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c
> @@ -242,6 +242,17 @@  toggle_bp_slot(struct perf_event *bp, bo
>  }
>  
>  /*
> + * Function to perform processor-specific cleanup during unregistration
> + */
> +__weak void arch_unregister_hw_breakpoint(struct perf_event *bp)
> +{
> +	/*
> +	 * A weak stub function here for those archs that don't define
> +	 * it inside arch/.../kernel/hw_breakpoint.c
> +	 */
> +}
> +
> +/*
>   * Contraints to check before allowing this new breakpoint counter:
>   *
>   *  == Non-pinned counter == (Considered as pinned for now)
> @@ -339,6 +350,7 @@  void release_bp_slot(struct perf_event *
>  {
>  	mutex_lock(&nr_bp_mutex);
>  
> +	arch_unregister_hw_breakpoint(bp);
>  	__release_bp_slot(bp);
>  
>  	mutex_unlock(&nr_bp_mutex);
> 


Since the weak version is empty, should it just be delcared (in
a header, put the comment there) and not defined?

milton

  reply	other threads:[~2010-05-25 11:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20100525083055.342788418@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
2010-05-25  9:13 ` [Patch 1/4] Allow arch-specific cleanup before breakpoint unregistration K.Prasad
2010-05-25  9:13   ` K.Prasad
2010-05-25 11:39   ` Millton Miller [this message]
2010-05-25 11:39     ` Millton Miller
2010-05-26  6:51     ` K.Prasad
2010-05-26  9:54       ` David Howells
2010-05-26  9:54         ` David Howells
2010-05-26 15:13         ` Michael Ellerman
2010-05-26 15:13           ` Michael Ellerman
2010-05-26 17:17         ` K.Prasad
2010-05-26 17:17           ` K.Prasad
2010-05-26 17:23           ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-05-26 17:23             ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-05-26 17:31             ` K.Prasad
2010-05-26 17:35               ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-05-26 17:28           ` K.Prasad
2010-05-26 17:28             ` K.Prasad
2010-05-25  9:14 ` [Patch 2/4] PPC64-HWBKPT: Implement hw-breakpoints for PowerPC BookIII S K.Prasad
2010-05-27  6:19   ` Paul Mackerras
2010-05-28  7:39     ` K.Prasad
2010-05-25  9:14 ` [Patch 3/4] PPC64-HWBKPT: Handle concurrent alignment interrupts K.Prasad
2010-05-27  6:20   ` Paul Mackerras
2010-05-28  7:41     ` K.Prasad
2010-05-25  9:15 ` [Patch 4/4] PPC64-HWBKPT: Enable hw-breakpoints while handling intervening signals K.Prasad
2010-05-27  6:32   ` Paul Mackerras
     [not found] <20100524102614.040177456@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
2010-05-24 10:32 ` [Patch 1/4] Allow arch-specific cleanup before breakpoint unregistration K.Prasad

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1274787559_8162@mail4.comsite.net \
    --to=miltonm@bga.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=benh@au1.ibm.com \
    --cc=dwg@au1.ibm.com \
    --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mikey@neuling.org \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    --cc=prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=roland@redhat.com \
    --cc=shaggy@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.