From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 9BE48223C40; Thu, 12 Dec 2024 18:41:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1734028865; cv=none; b=rdLZOMQ8dDcU7jkIFtSYukmp71Wgmcdq+9C5+KmcxTe42sXztG9cp/7p0/k7T5DYoM5aP25gcgrnnoDoJAi02pPhdUNATQe8nGDlUA4ONVuRjmL8hcNqPitbelNKgn3+xsYmcS0xiuB6Eo7nO0xGm7j+giDRJLwr5tKAFoOwDnk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1734028865; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Cm3RpNEPByBsyU85TyLlrUed6ZFN4HOcl3ze1OsU+wU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Sg1BboDZY0P97kUJ8ODrDDxRqaIpmgCAv+taZl9nIzOzhyoE1CDdwE4l+22MMcTySweUN/lAF33dkSPB6KDGQJu4R8G2HH2sNV5yfX3lPpl+XCbd8RV6Spn1aGY9tmyPGp/K3KLShhsOpZy0ki950ImUtHDjjOwmQt3SEipq1PA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=luD6Dp4X; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="luD6Dp4X" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D7787C4CECE; Thu, 12 Dec 2024 18:41:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1734028865; bh=Cm3RpNEPByBsyU85TyLlrUed6ZFN4HOcl3ze1OsU+wU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=luD6Dp4XQBY6UGvQA1wOyhjs9LBkW2KpKu149AOmtODqOkJjVrbWE9TagyoISL1UC c5Q0H3TgUfIHsmq1MyvO6K98J18RNaDmg+gEsPC8O2yVgU3kZ/dC/nACzN+9jA+7ks 1W9/rvbxr1001KmIBSj+lOJm+fPCqkHRIC9OdzRmQGnE23ESuM0t5Pid7eR7HoZJaR zDvj5y8MnW3UZUX3cdhENJSBEXrEx+EZ0WwEO8D/4pP8eMU6WC0R0t/6uVw7XuGg3Z Ll1vMSmg0QDvbUWNRfsW+Jn8Z9rZhdkkVky7TkZ249BYYI3e8KbBqhZxppp5KTVoNT Oy1D3KrPqAJcw== Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:41:02 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Ian Rogers Cc: Namhyung Kim , Kan Liang , Jiri Olsa , Adrian Hunter , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , LKML , linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf tools: Avoid unaligned pointer operations Message-ID: References: <20241127212655.922196-1-namhyung@kernel.org> 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=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 04:51:15PM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 1:26 PM Namhyung Kim wrote: > > The sample data is 64-bit aligned basically but raw data starts with > > 32-bit length field and data follows. In perf_event__synthesize_sample > > it treats the sample data as a 64-bit array. And it needs some trick > > to update the raw data properly. > > But it seems some compilers are not happy with this and the program dies > > siliently. I found the sample parsing test failed without any messages > > on affected systems. > > Let's update the code to use a 32-bit pointer directly and make sure the > > result is 64-bit aligned again. No functional changes intended. > > Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim > Reviewed-by: Ian Rogers Looks good, applied to perf-tools-next since this is something that is not new nor looks urgent. I think that since we have multiple maintainers, one for not urgent stuff/development and the other for the current window/urgent stuff, that we should express the expectation about where a patch should be processed, by having on the subject the tree the submitter thinks should take the patch, i.e. for this one: [PATCH next] perf tools: Avoid unaligned pointer operations While for urgent stuff we could do: [PATCH urgent] perf tools: Avoid unaligned pointer operations wdyt? - Arnaldo