lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 12/20] x86: perf: intel_pt: Intel PT PMU driver
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 03:13:35PM +0200, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> >> + if (test_cpu_cap(&boot_cpu_data, X86_FEATURE_INTEL_PT)) {
> >> + for (i = 0; i < PT_CPUID_LEAVES; i++)
> >> + cpuid_count(20, i,
> >> + &pt_pmu.caps[CR_EAX + i * 4],
> >> + &pt_pmu.caps[CR_EBX + i * 4],
> >> + &pt_pmu.caps[CR_ECX + i * 4],
> >> + &pt_pmu.caps[CR_EDX + i * 4]);
> >> + } else
> >> + return -ENODEV;
> >
> > I would really rather you use bitfield unions for cpuid stuff, have a
> > look at union cpuid10_e[abd]x as used in
> > perf_event_intel.c:intel_pmu_init().
>
> It looks like it would only work for the first cpuid leaf, but we'll
> need more than that. And the array makes it easier to allocate
> attributes for sysfs en masse.
>
> I guess it doesn't really matter if we use unions unless these bits need
> to be exported to other parts of the kernel? But *that* is hardly a good
> idea. What do you think?

Ah yes, the generation. C is lacking there isn't it :/

Now I'm not sure we want to export all the bits you're using though.
Like the topa_multiple_entires, that appears an implementation detail
userspace should not really care about either way.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-04 17:21    [W:1.075 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site