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 51630CA601E for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2026 13:21:40 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:Cc:List-Subscribe: List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:From:References:To:Subject :MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=ypXqJeoqO/OA0P5zFci6A2c5lPDoR2N2TjeEBwfYDTM=; b=mYUxIFq/JE1f8a EesxL26wfUQiIP5pO3o/8q5VT0vPLzfJ+Snz21W6ScZ2avDfvgBCNb7/wKmew2OSqgAXhsirGwEzz xssqaNytcL8RkxNfNR3gP8iW01Lle1CMOrLDz8nm36pCm7XaqgyTcPkeN1BVzicHzt4TbgDpPmIGk KlSqpNCCP/uS2Z0xQhvCKXvGdwuJRswUEJPqPwGWrF6DKrsqowTA32gYgcbsQ0W+Gq6c4Yil3+Bgf 4yi6AjybmGHjNXg2RyvfQZCziTX1dKtShEmUSFWRtFOeEjxxZcEnX5Mxe8640Q2tfJnzUWXXFAZJ2 Xyv+uwoxcGeCfuV1IAdg==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1xFAXU-00000006NAR-3Mvq; Fri, 09 Oct 2026 13:21:32 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1xFAXS-00000006N9R-1s45 for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2026 13:21:31 +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 46DCC1BB2; Fri, 9 Oct 2026 06:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.2.213.24] (e137867.arm.com [10.2.213.24]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 257993F763; Fri, 9 Oct 2026 06:21:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=arm.com; s=foss; t=1791552087; bh=hRhxlDr3ghluH/n3MjQIcZt8qG0YcCtn6rX1pd593sQ=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=Adl6jA6J9BYPFxHQzHiaWmUINvAK8wA58GDVWDHD7lg54hvFG7MF1Yc6exVEpsZ6T D6Xxp5nThjjH+YtvgQDITVhH4czKRwtgYb0d3ufijZ2wktSRmZeqk5SbmJrvGkWieY II+Yr9pCM6gLKQF6mGQLT9LhFECZ6ow5oVPJX31Y= Message-ID: <5becc0b8-9b31-4539-b477-2d4af66c89a4@arm.com> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2026 14:21:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ARM, ARM64, LONGARCH, XTENSA: Delay HW BP notification to task_work() To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior References: <20261001143516.Ew8C97WS@linutronix.de> <20261008192117.ZIKKU3Yh@linutronix.de> From: Ada Couprie Diaz Content-Language: en-US, en-GB, fr Organization: Arm Ltd. In-Reply-To: <20261008192117.ZIKKU3Yh@linutronix.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.9.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20261009_062130_533177_7199DF05 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 12.88 ) 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: , Cc: Mark Rutland , Ian Rogers , Alexander Shishkin , Catalin Marinas , linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Max Filippov , WANG Xuerui , Will Deacon , Huacai Chen , Russell King , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Waiman Long , Clark Williams , "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" , James Clark , Steven Rostedt , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , loongarch@lists.linux.dev, Namhyung Kim , Adrian Hunter , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Chris Zankel , Linus Walleij , Oleg Nesterov , linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, Jiri Olsa Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Hi Sebastian, On 08/10/2026 20:21, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2026-10-06 18:17:52 [+0100], Ada Couprie Diaz wrote: >> Hi Sebastian, > Hi Ada, > >> I find the function names a bit counter-intuitive, compared to the other >> arch-specific perf functions. >> Given the name `perf_arch_...`, I would have expected them to be defined >> in arch code, rather than in the generic perf code. >> From what I can see, usually perf functions calling an arch-specific >> function lack the `_arch_` infix of their `arch_` counterpart. >> >> I do not know very well what we expect in perf, so I might be off-base, >> but would calling them `perf_hwbp_send_sig()` and `perf_hwbp_notify()` >> make sense ? > Thanks for looking at this. I renamed them as: > - perf_arch_hwbp_notify() -> perf_hwbp_notify() (generic) > - arch_hwbp_send_sig() -> perf_arch_hwbp_send_sig() (arch specific) > - perf_arch_hwbp_send_sig() -> perf_hwbp_send_sig() (generic) > > [...] > > Sebastian That sounds good to me, thanks ! Kind regards Ada