From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: acme@kernel.org (Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo)
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 16:31:22 -0300
Subject: [PATCH 2/2 v2] perf tools: Enable bpf prologue for arm64
In-Reply-To: <20170126165211.GK14167@arm.com>
References: <20170124190908.GG10340@kernel.org>
 <20170125072311.22922-1-hekuang@huawei.com>
 <20170125133201.GC27026@arm.com>
 <20170126104916.971478fa29083cf4ae14fac3@kernel.org>
 <20170126165211.GK14167@arm.com>
Message-ID: <20170126193122.GB17504@kernel.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Em Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 04:52:12PM +0000, Will Deacon escreveu:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:49:16AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 13:32:01 +0000
> > Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 07:23:11AM +0000, He Kuang wrote:
> > > > Since HAVE_KPROBES can be enabled in arm64, this patch introduces
> > > > regs_query_register_offset() to convert register name to offset for
> > > > arm64, so the BPF prologue feature is ready to use.
> > > > 
> > > > This patch also changes the 'dwarfnum' to 'offset' in register table,
> > > > so the related functions are consistent with x86.
> > > 
> > > Wouldn't it be an awful lot simpler just to leave the code as-is, and
> > > implement regs_query_register_offset in the same way that we implement
> > > get_arch_regstr but return the dwarfnum?
> > 
> > No, since the offset is not same as dwarfnum.
> > 
> > With this style, the index of array becomes the dwarfnum (the index of
> > each register defined by DWARF) and the "offset" member means the
> > byte-offset of the register in (user_)pt_regs. Those should be different.
> 
> Ok, then do it as two patches then, rather than introduce functionality
> along with the renaming.
> 
> > > I don't really see the point of all the refactoring.
> > 
> > Also, from the maintenance point of view, this rewrite work makes
> > the code simply similar to x86 implementation, that will be easier to
> > maintain :)
> 
> Right, apart from the two howling bugs in the version that was nearly merged
> initially :p. I tend to err on the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" side
> of the argument but if you really want the refactoring lets keep it as a
> separate change.

So, He, can you do that? How do we proceed?

- Arnaldo