Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/16] powerpc/watchpoint: Disable all available
 watchpoints when !dawr_force_enable
To:     Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>, mpe@ellerman.id.au,
        mikey@neuling.org
Cc:     apopple@linux.ibm.com, paulus@samba.org, npiggin@gmail.com,
        naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        jolsa@kernel.org, oleg@redhat.com, fweisbec@gmail.com,
        mingo@kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20200401061309.92442-1-ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
 <20200401061309.92442-9-ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
Message-ID: <1bef7056-b862-3b20-c3b8-8b161511c60a@c-s.fr>
Date:   Wed, 1 Apr 2020 08:33:33 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200401061309.92442-9-ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


Le 01/04/2020 à 08:13, Ravi Bangoria a écrit :
> Instead of disabling only first watchpoint, disable all available
> watchpoints while clearing dawr_force_enable.

Can you also explain why you change the function name ?

> 
> Signed-off-by: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>   arch/powerpc/kernel/dawr.c | 10 +++++++---
>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/dawr.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/dawr.c
> index 311e51ee09f4..5c882f07ac7d 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/dawr.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/dawr.c
> @@ -50,9 +50,13 @@ int set_dawr(struct arch_hw_breakpoint *brk, int nr)
>   	return 0;
>   }
>   
> -static void set_dawr_cb(void *info)
> +static void disable_dawrs(void *info)

Wouldn't it be better to keep _cb at the end of the function ?

>   {
> -	set_dawr(info, 0);
> +	struct arch_hw_breakpoint null_brk = {0};
> +	int i;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < nr_wp_slots(); i++)
> +		set_dawr(&null_brk, i);
>   }
>   
>   static ssize_t dawr_write_file_bool(struct file *file,
> @@ -74,7 +78,7 @@ static ssize_t dawr_write_file_bool(struct file *file,
>   
>   	/* If we are clearing, make sure all CPUs have the DAWR cleared */
>   	if (!dawr_force_enable)
> -		smp_call_function(set_dawr_cb, &null_brk, 0);
> +		smp_call_function(disable_dawrs, NULL, 0);
>   
>   	return rc;
>   }
> 

Christophe