Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Wed, 7 May 2014 14:24:53 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] perf tests: Add dwarf unwind test on ARM | From | Jean Pihet <> |
| |
Hi Jiri,
On 7 May 2014 14:06, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 05:26:18PM +0200, Jean Pihet wrote: > SNIP > > there's a memory leak of 'buf' already fixed fox x86: > > perf tests x86: Fix memory leak in sample_ustack() > commit 763d7f5f2718f085bab5a9e63308349728f3ad12 > Author: Masanari Iida <standby24x7@gmail.com> > Date: Sun Apr 20 00:16:41 2014 +0900 > > jirka
Ok
Here is the diff between the x86 and the ARM implementations: $ diff -urN tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/dwarf-unwind.c tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/dwarf-unwind.c --- tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/dwarf-unwind.c 2014-05-06 17:31:17.507961045 +0200 +++ tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/dwarf-unwind.c 2014-05-06 16:52:00.589776839 +0200 @@ -21,11 +21,12 @@ return -1; }
- sp = (unsigned long) regs[PERF_REG_ARM64_SP]; + sp = (unsigned long) regs[PERF_REG_X86_SP];
- map = map_groups__find(&thread->mg, MAP__FUNCTION, (u64) sp); + map = map_groups__find(thread->mg, MAP__VARIABLE, (u64) sp); if (!map) { pr_debug("failed to get stack map\n"); + free(buf); return -1; }
Which leads to a few questions: - the map_groups__find parameters need to be fixed too, right? - the free(buf) needs to be fixed, - given that the remaining difference in the file is just a register macro, it is worth to factor the code in a single file. Does that make sense? If worthwhile I can do that once the ARM and ARM64 support is merged in. What do you think?
Regards, Jean
| |