linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 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

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

Thread overview: 19+ 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 11:39   ` Millton Miller [this message]
2010-05-26  6:51     ` K.Prasad
2010-05-26  9:54     ` David Howells
2010-05-26 15:13       ` Michael Ellerman
2010-05-26 17:17       ` K.Prasad
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
2010-05-25  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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).