From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755331AbbIAIUZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Sep 2015 04:20:25 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:49098 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754775AbbIAIUW (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Sep 2015 04:20:22 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,447,1437462000"; d="scan'208";a="759804760" Message-ID: <55E55F1E.6030804@intel.com> Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 11:17:34 +0300 From: Adrian Hunter Organization: Intel Finland Oy, Registered Address: PL 281, 00181 Helsinki, Business Identity Code: 0357606 - 4, Domiciled in Helsinki User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?5bmz5p2+6ZuF5bezIC8gSElSQU1BVFXvvIxNQVNBTUk=?= , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo CC: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Jiri Olsa , Andy Lutomirski , Denys Vlasenko , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Dave Hansen , Qiaowei Ren , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] perf tools: Add a test for decoding of new x86 instructions References: <1441029522-20235-1-git-send-email-adrian.hunter@intel.com> <1441029522-20235-2-git-send-email-adrian.hunter@intel.com> <50399556C9727B4D88A595C8584AAB37524FD276@GSjpTKYDCembx32.service.hitachi.net> In-Reply-To: <50399556C9727B4D88A595C8584AAB37524FD276@GSjpTKYDCembx32.service.hitachi.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/09/15 03:18, 平松雅巳 / HIRAMATU,MASAMI wrote: >> From: Adrian Hunter [mailto:adrian.hunter@intel.com] >> >> Add a new test titled: >> >> Test x86 instruction decoder - new instructions >> >> The purpose of this test is to check the instruction decoder >> after new instructions have been added. Initially, MPX >> instructions are tested which are already supported, but the >> definitions in x86-opcode-map.txt will be tweaked in a >> subsequent patch, after which this test can be run to verify >> those changes. > > Hmm, btw, why should this test in perf? It seems that we need > this test in kselftest or build-time selftest. > I prefer to put this in arch/x86/tools/ or lib/. What would you > think ? There are 2 reasons perf tools needs a test: 1. perf tools is source code independent from the kernel i.e. it has its own copy of the instruction decoder. 2. perf tools test also tests the Intel PT decoder's categorization of instructions.