----- On Aug 10, 2016, at 9:33 AM, Peter Zijlstra peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 01:26:04PM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
>> static bool rseq_update_cpu_id_event_counter(struct task_struct *t)
>> {
>> union rseq_cpu_event u;
>>
>> u.e.cpu_id = raw_smp_processor_id();
>> u.e.event_counter = ++t->rseq_event_counter;
>> if (__put_user(u.v, &t->rseq->u.v))
>> return false;
>> trace_rseq_inc(t->rseq_event_counter);
>
> I had not previously noticed the trace_* muck, but I would suggest
> passing in t and leaving it up to the tracepoint implementation to pick
> out the value.
OK, fixed.
>
> Also, since this not only increments (it also updates the cpu number)
> the naming is 'wrong'.
I'll rename the event to "rseq_update" then, and have two fields:
cpu_id and event_counter.
Thanks,
Mathieu
>
>> return true;
> > }
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
