Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 9 Feb 2023 09:10:50 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH V7 3/6] arm64/perf: Add branch stack support in struct arm_pmu | From | Anshuman Khandual <> |
| |
On 2/9/23 00:56, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 09:45:22AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> >> On 1/12/23 19:24, Mark Rutland wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 08:40:36AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >>>> struct arm_pmu { >>>> struct pmu pmu; >>>> cpumask_t supported_cpus; >>>> char *name; >>>> int pmuver; >>>> + int features; >>>> irqreturn_t (*handle_irq)(struct arm_pmu *pmu); >>>> void (*enable)(struct perf_event *event); >>>> void (*disable)(struct perf_event *event); >>> >>> Hmm, we already have the secure_access field separately. How about we fold that >>> in and go with: >>> >>> unsigned int secure_access : 1, >>> has_branch_stack : 1; >> >> Something like this would work, but should we use __u32 instead of unsigned int >> to ensure 32 bit width ? > > I don't think that's necessary; the exact size doesn't really matter, and > unsigned int is 32-bits on all targets suppropted by Linux, not just arm and > arm64. > > I do agree that if this were a userspace ABI detail, it might be preferable to > use __u32. However, I think using it here gives the misleading impression that > there is an ABI concern when there is not, and as above it's not necessary, so > I'd prefer unsigned int here.
Makes sense, will this as unsigned int.
| |