Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sat, 16 Jan 2021 08:50:46 +0800
From:   Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
To:     Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
Cc:     Mike Leach <mike.leach@linaro.org>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Kiss <Daniel.Kiss@arm.com>,
        Denis Nikitin <denik@chromium.org>,
        Coresight ML <coresight@lists.linaro.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/7] perf cs-etm: Calculate per CPU metadata array size
Message-ID: <20210116005046.GB5418@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s>
References: <20210109074435.626855-1-leo.yan@linaro.org>
 <20210109074435.626855-4-leo.yan@linaro.org>
 <96ec434e-4103-02ac-a05a-761a9ca8cb0d@arm.com>
 <CAJ9a7VjtUuRRYBBu63kSXKwrGdB8ZoWJz-bE1g9tMLSbkFVDGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210115224658.GC375055@xps15>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210115224658.GC375055@xps15>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Mathieu,

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 03:46:58PM -0700, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 12:09:12PM +0000, Mike Leach wrote:
> > Hi Leo,
> > 
> > I think there is an issue here in that your modification assumes that
> > all cpus in the system are of the same ETM type. The original routine
> > allowed for differing ETM types, thus differing cpu ETM field lengths
> > between ETMv4 / ETMv3, the field size was used after the relevant
> > magic number for the cpu ETM was read.
> > 
> > You have replaced two different sizes - with a single calculated size.
> 
> I usually go through an entire patchset before looking at the comments people
> have made.  In this case Mike and I are coming to the exact same conclusion.

Agreed, now this work depends on Mike's patch for extending metadata
version; otherwise if without Mike's patch, it will cause compability
issue.

> I will look at Mike's patch on Monday.

Cool!

Thanks for review,
Leo