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:   Tue, 24 Aug 2021 10:13:11 +0800
From:   Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
To:     James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Mike Leach <mike.leach@linaro.org>,
        John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Riccardo Mancini <rickyman7@gmail.com>,
        Jin Yao <yao.jin@linux.intel.com>,
        Li Huafei <lihuafei1@huawei.com>, coresight@lists.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] perf auxtrace: Add
 compat_auxtrace_mmap__{read_head|write_tail}
Message-ID: <20210824021311.GB169379@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s>
References: <20210809112727.596876-1-leo.yan@linaro.org>
 <20210809112727.596876-3-leo.yan@linaro.org>
 <2b4e0c07-a8df-cca6-6a94-328560f4b0c6@arm.com>
 <20210823095155.GC100516@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s>
 <319ee11a-06f7-abde-6495-d2175928b9fe@arm.com>
 <20210823121348.GE100516@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s>
 <1c0101fd-2ca6-4741-5d72-82d3e00bfeb6@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1c0101fd-2ca6-4741-5d72-82d3e00bfeb6@arm.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 05:00:14PM +0100, James Clark wrote:

[...]

> >> I couldn't see how it can ever return -1, it seems like it would loop forever
> >> until it reads the correct value.
> > 
> > I use this chunk comment to address the function
> > compat_auxtrace_mmap__write_tail():
> > 
> > +int __weak compat_auxtrace_mmap__write_tail(struct auxtrace_mmap *mm, u64 tail)
> > +{
> > +	struct perf_event_mmap_page *pc = mm->userpg;
> > +	u64 mask = (u64)(UINT32_MAX) << 32;
> > +
> > +	if (tail & mask)
> > +		return -1;
> > +
> > +	/* Ensure all reads are done before we write the tail out */
> > +	smp_mb();
> > +	WRITE_ONCE(pc->aux_tail, tail);
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > 
> > Please let me know if this is okay or not?  Otherwise, if you think
> > the format can cause confusion, I'd like to split the comments into
> > two sections, one section for reading AUX head and another is for
> > writing AUX tail.
> 
> I see what you mean now, I think keeping it in one section is fine, I would just
> replace "When update the AUX tail and detects" with "When
> compat_auxtrace_mmap__write_tail() detects". If the function name is there then
> it's clear that it's not the return value of compat_auxtrace_mmap__read_head()

Sure, will update and send out the new patch.

Thanks for suggestion.
Leo