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:   Fri, 3 Sep 2021 10:28:02 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Cc:     bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, acme@kernel.org,
        mingo@redhat.com, kjain@linux.ibm.com, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 2/3] bpf: introduce helper
 bpf_get_branch_snapshot
Message-ID: <YTHcki5RLZIIGqbk@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20210902165706.2812867-1-songliubraving@fb.com>
 <20210902165706.2812867-3-songliubraving@fb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210902165706.2812867-3-songliubraving@fb.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 09:57:05AM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> +BPF_CALL_3(bpf_get_branch_snapshot, void *, buf, u32, size, u64, flags)
> +{
> +#ifndef CONFIG_X86
> +	return -ENOENT;
> +#else
> +	static const u32 br_entry_size = sizeof(struct perf_branch_entry);
> +	u32 entry_cnt = size / br_entry_size;
> +
> +	if (unlikely(flags))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	if (!buf || (size % br_entry_size != 0))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	entry_cnt = static_call(perf_snapshot_branch_stack)(buf, entry_cnt);
> +
> +	if (!entry_cnt)
> +		return -ENOENT;
> +
> +	return entry_cnt * br_entry_size;
> +#endif
> +}

Do we really need that CONFIG_X86 thing? Seems rather bad practise.