From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 737EE245021; Fri, 14 Feb 2025 11:32:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739532773; cv=none; b=oce6z/rVsRdEgavcSa9FchwabMh8fRtSBrBb3k2adjYk7VArxwn3MvY+8nBIJi1m8QIgopJ05RS7+5qSg7ClY40HK7l6jt4MAqabdvJxYa1hUzQ85FpYI9+WVzCzAIuVw1tC6M2B79YH+KhOC9h5vdseYPLXKhWJYGt01qPqWcA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739532773; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ZxRqtA2Pr+vwIr05ZbDmWmG2gKvCO/nFce1NT3ml670=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=QCzoXRFgzxvNUGM7PKclJ1P6A3B9pyjXJQdyZS/HcsRw1tb9go+9EbMUYNsfpx7xu4y/H+0VERkTtvauNrs3EqbeLMauV0uYST1gHxsTIsPvkIO4OF6AmWTr60KvHZtbniYfx2oab+ZQ5Sa9HsFQz8xWAIaSc2ju+Xu1eW0NF+M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com 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 1C77C113E; Fri, 14 Feb 2025 03:33:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (e132581.arm.com [10.2.76.71]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5A1363F6A8; Fri, 14 Feb 2025 03:32:51 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 11:32:49 +0000 From: Leo Yan To: Namhyung Kim Cc: Ian Rogers , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Mark Rutland , Alexander Shishkin , Jiri Olsa , Adrian Hunter , "Liang, Kan" , John Garry , Will Deacon , James Clark , Mike Leach , linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Graham Woodward Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/11] perf script: Refactor branch flags for Arm SPE Message-ID: <20250214113249.GA6174@e132581.arm.com> References: <20250205121555.180606-1-leo.yan@arm.com> <20250212085439.GA235556@e132581.arm.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Hi Ian, Namhyung, On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 09:29:28PM -0800, Namhyung Kim wrote: [...] > > > > Built and tested (on x86). A little strange patch 5 adds a new bit not > > > > at the end, but "Sample parsing" test wasn't broken so looks like it > > > > is good. I was surprised the use of value in the union: > > > > ``` > > > > struct branch_flags { > > > > union { > > > > u64 value; > > > > struct { > > > > u64 mispred:1; > > > > u64 predicted:1; > > > > ... > > > > ``` > > > > didn't get broken. Perhaps there's an opportunity for additional tests. > > Probably because it just checks the value as a whole u64, not each > bitfield. But it seems to test if the value of the input sample data > and synthesized-and-parsed output sample data is same. So it may not be > important what value it has. > > Anyway it'd be nice if any ARM folks can review this series. After discussed with James, I concluded that it has risk to break other arches (e.g., x86 LBR). So I have sent out patch set v2 [1] to keep the existed bitfield layout in patch 05, and added Ian's review tags. I expect James will give a review the new series. Thanks, Leo [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-perf-users/20250214111936.15168-1-leo.yan@arm.com/T/#t