From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79C181C5F2C; Fri, 8 Aug 2025 05:12:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754629940; cv=none; b=GzFvrpWplK0CCUhuZJhlrwieexmzrHm+AkiEAWH9/GKwR76sCbRbM8rehU9b1o9PG3kqz6pIPBB60UC7NLuMPKsfYlBukCXafh1PmU5qqCMxR4uiAFYdGTXHuOCNkfh/bRmOTFoz/Zqy1dhXBPhEftqXMaozL7ezBBVABh9rQcw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754629940; c=relaxed/simple; bh=JePby3LynBt2EamhXGDR2pCcDuW93SWFbdrkEr7YO5I=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Aw6JNMKlwkKjMEUNyO70pD5Q4aHJskhgi2qvhV5z2KiDhk7zfon9CxW1j9DpeS5Gc713jcmIU3ZLqRm+PpR74TSf9Y0YV7MFsRgypdaeO5X33bauXx0fYY1CcvtD1iEe+4m/199DlCYLZpmpWmqdceYiGInS63wKoXFCR3oLDQ8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=jVagqRyo; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=uNipW5YA; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="jVagqRyo"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="uNipW5YA" From: Nam Cao DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1754629937; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=JePby3LynBt2EamhXGDR2pCcDuW93SWFbdrkEr7YO5I=; b=jVagqRyonN+sfCNgL1NnggHAv3Q7adSqt91y8FAmjy7J59PZ/07tDw+vd/D5gll9JzWEXo ue8Yo6Am81rCZv7v/MCljfVyHnlvjXv2qC6YbNFTBxrX2AMJcLuqhp8zJhMmacnhgVwdA3 1nq8Y8v4O/SkzP9wgzlMTZNn310iWMSDtmdymgYv1Bbe4RYjGo5HLvRe+jVNTcMQJOMrQB 0I4FUtG+tP9pWEKHvj1UJ3FODlNYNo5tnMNV6dZr+HDVM6XJ4ByHBHzVUaFY5jcny87JRU KPWEJWouIdRW1zEVUGIIbQsVWrBOgxCRj3ADs0r+GCGfgxw8ELuB2HjBVojzXg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1754629937; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=JePby3LynBt2EamhXGDR2pCcDuW93SWFbdrkEr7YO5I=; b=uNipW5YAEaX5LMMslbLVwnvODloV2Ij+y7MIX01+/H4U8B7cdMZ5JeRkJH+ABkeZsqhL9d 1t0CyEOLqsFlLYCA== To: Gabriele Monaco , Steven Rostedt , Masami Hiramatsu , Mathieu Desnoyers , linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] verification/rvgen/ltl: Support per-cpu monitor generation In-Reply-To: <6754c61d60fc161963d0625a4b647a241b363fc5.camel@redhat.com> References: <6754c61d60fc161963d0625a4b647a241b363fc5.camel@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2025 07:12:16 +0200 Message-ID: <87o6sqpfbj.fsf@yellow.woof> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Gabriele Monaco writes: > I get you're trying to be more type-agnostic, but I believe this > /online/ is a bit imprecise, unless you register a hotplug handler and > just initialise the online CPUs (much of an overkill I'd say). > What about something like "this is false if the monitor exists already > before the monitor is enabled" Sorry, after re-reading this one day later, I am still not sure why you says "online" is imprecise. Due to hotplug, CPUs can become online and offline. The current implementation ignore hotplug and initialize all possible CPUs as if they are all oneline. But if hotplug becomes important in the future, I may add a CPU hotplug handler. > Other than that it looks good to me. > > Reviewed-by: Gabriele Monaco Thanks! Nam