From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754545Ab2EXJeJ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 24 May 2012 05:34:09 -0400
Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:37782 "EHLO
	casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752221Ab2EXJeH (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 24 May 2012 05:34:07 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/16] perf: Unified API to record selective sets of
 arch registers
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: acme@redhat.com, mingo@elte.hu, paulus@samba.org,
        cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, eranian@google.com,
        gorcunov@openvz.org, tzanussi@gmail.com, mhiramat@redhat.com,
        robert.richter@amd.com, fche@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com, drepper@gmail.com, asharma@fb.com,
        benjamin.redelings@nescent.org
In-Reply-To: <1337801535-12865-2-git-send-email-jolsa@redhat.com>
References: <1337801535-12865-1-git-send-email-jolsa@redhat.com>
	 <1337801535-12865-2-git-send-email-jolsa@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 11:33:53 +0200
Message-ID: <1337852033.9783.80.camel@laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 21:32 +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> +enum perf_event_x86_32_regs {
> +       PERF_X86_32_REG_EAX,
> +       PERF_X86_32_REG_EBX,
> +       PERF_X86_32_REG_ECX,
> +       PERF_X86_32_REG_EDX,
> +       PERF_X86_32_REG_ESI,
> +       PERF_X86_32_REG_EDI,
> +       PERF_X86_32_REG_EBP,
> +       PERF_X86_32_REG_ESP,
> +       PERF_X86_32_REG_EIP,
> +       PERF_X86_32_REG_FLAGS,
> +       PERF_X86_32_REG_CS,
> +       PERF_X86_32_REG_DS,
> +       PERF_X86_32_REG_ES,
> +       PERF_X86_32_REG_FS,
> +       PERF_X86_32_REG_GS,
> +
> +       /* Non ABI */
> +       PERF_X86_32_REG_MAX,
> +};

> +enum perf_event_x86_64_regs {
> +       PERF_X86_64_REG_RAX,
> +       PERF_X86_64_REG_RBX,
> +       PERF_X86_64_REG_RCX,
> +       PERF_X86_64_REG_RDX,
> +       PERF_X86_64_REG_RSI,
> +       PERF_X86_64_REG_RDI,
> +       PERF_X86_64_REG_R8,
> +       PERF_X86_64_REG_R9,
> +       PERF_X86_64_REG_R10,
> +       PERF_X86_64_REG_R11,
> +       PERF_X86_64_REG_R12,
> +       PERF_X86_64_REG_R13,
> +       PERF_X86_64_REG_R14,
> +       PERF_X86_64_REG_R15,
> +       PERF_X86_64_REG_RBP,
> +       PERF_X86_64_REG_RSP,
> +       PERF_X86_64_REG_RIP,
> +       PERF_X86_64_REG_FLAGS,
> +       PERF_X86_64_REG_CS,
> +       PERF_X86_64_REG_SS,
> +
> +       /* Non ABI */
> +       PERF_X86_64_REG_MAX,
> +}; 

So why bother with two different APIs? Why not have only the x86_64 one
and maybe add a warning/error/fail whatever when x86_64 regs are
selected on i386/compat tasks.