From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 884C6C021A6 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2025 11:49:11 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=gvJrUCYeofuYPHAjARFRWr5l7qxZ1/+bhoCs1SbUnvc=; b=Zze3xJLgE/HHeQEYEfxFSs2Hvm VNjA5GgBVYzPRp0qF3nJC24Ws1E4I9AnsdV1zh/vWqWoLvid4YJ87zxoeYuXIbLJSx2pRsc2543xC KHnaSFzTllB9xv7kS19L4JJsE3hy0hyE/OPeUbuPqRIFIL901gzqDmiG/7/evRpRoQSj7qNZeXek7 Fnphs6tdSQbO4o/Q3oIq09Du3FjGKPTY8KbLO8qlKTbcxM8ZEWbyc/qI171dThsfMWC7AGMhzyhyJ Yf0fYSlYsE8Ah/veR5zWnyYcqT65c2qnovCHLj3h0b8JICbfMlKjTZKiqYAoWBTRQ2BrHeE1h+xIN SE0d3aDg==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1tiuBp-0000000Ejne-1VPi; Fri, 14 Feb 2025 11:49:01 +0000 Received: from desiato.infradead.org ([2001:8b0:10b:1:d65d:64ff:fe57:4e05]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1titwM-0000000EgjH-0hL3 for linux-arm-kernel@bombadil.infradead.org; Fri, 14 Feb 2025 11:33:02 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=desiato.20200630; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=gvJrUCYeofuYPHAjARFRWr5l7qxZ1/+bhoCs1SbUnvc=; b=EA2UNALB7k0m8xBfELX4M+lMXA jGxq5sShKOW2IESK/+gWlL1zaMowMOP3Ae1a0uGa/ZLpf0L2MwA5f2faTtXfSkt/APuoK3p0Rc0qX fR6xC1fzYNxdxXLN+EVBUGwbAUg2ASUtWMwduDYAQTy9mlS5vLoQ7buu8I0YiaXreI2XIJKYAXW1z UbxBQ0J91t5DCTnHYBVoTIR64a6njsF3bBRcOlzFx09pmVIECWV1hSJqnyHOrwneYQnJOwepDobIU lsKWMWc/GVaBtfiMH3PHrGqtwN5ZXalNaIhPe0CuBId+R7bJOfMveljOZCFU1hEQ0ooToBVdctpIv 6KYeq4+g==; Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by desiato.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1titwG-00000001Eok-2sUY for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 14 Feb 2025 11:33:00 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C77C113E; Fri, 14 Feb 2025 03:33:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (e132581.arm.com [10.2.76.71]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5A1363F6A8; Fri, 14 Feb 2025 03:32:51 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 11:32:49 +0000 From: Leo Yan To: Namhyung Kim Cc: Ian Rogers , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Mark Rutland , Alexander Shishkin , Jiri Olsa , Adrian Hunter , "Liang, Kan" , John Garry , Will Deacon , James Clark , Mike Leach , linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Graham Woodward Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/11] perf script: Refactor branch flags for Arm SPE Message-ID: <20250214113249.GA6174@e132581.arm.com> References: <20250205121555.180606-1-leo.yan@arm.com> <20250212085439.GA235556@e132581.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20250214_113256_968877_57383C67 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 17.30 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Hi Ian, Namhyung, On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 09:29:28PM -0800, Namhyung Kim wrote: [...] > > > > Built and tested (on x86). A little strange patch 5 adds a new bit not > > > > at the end, but "Sample parsing" test wasn't broken so looks like it > > > > is good. I was surprised the use of value in the union: > > > > ``` > > > > struct branch_flags { > > > > union { > > > > u64 value; > > > > struct { > > > > u64 mispred:1; > > > > u64 predicted:1; > > > > ... > > > > ``` > > > > didn't get broken. Perhaps there's an opportunity for additional tests. > > Probably because it just checks the value as a whole u64, not each > bitfield. But it seems to test if the value of the input sample data > and synthesized-and-parsed output sample data is same. So it may not be > important what value it has. > > Anyway it'd be nice if any ARM folks can review this series. After discussed with James, I concluded that it has risk to break other arches (e.g., x86 LBR). So I have sent out patch set v2 [1] to keep the existed bitfield layout in patch 05, and added Ian's review tags. I expect James will give a review the new series. Thanks, Leo [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-perf-users/20250214111936.15168-1-leo.yan@arm.com/T/#t