Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 22 Sep 2022 21:57:08 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To:     James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, broonie@kernel.org,
        acme@kernel.org, leo.yan@linaro.org, john.garry@huawei.com,
        catalin.marinas@arm.com, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] perf: arm64: Kernel support for Dwarf unwinding
 through SVE functions
Message-ID: <20220922205707.GB12945@willie-the-truck>
References: <20220901132658.1024635-1-james.clark@arm.com>
 <20220922140406.GG12095@willie-the-truck>
 <d6eaa797-380b-e8ae-f928-54843dd596f2@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d6eaa797-380b-e8ae-f928-54843dd596f2@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 03:31:20PM +0100, James Clark wrote:
> 
> 
> On 22/09/2022 15:04, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 02:26:56PM +0100, James Clark wrote:
> >> I'm resubmitting this with a few of the changes suggested by Will on V2.
> >>
> >> I haven't made any changes regarding the open questions about the
> >> discoverability or saving the new reg and passing to output_sample()
> >> because I think it's best to be consistent with the implementations on
> >> other platforms first. I have explained in more detail on v2 [1].
> >>
> >> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/5fcf1a6f-c8fb-c296-992e-18aae8874095@arm.com/
> > 
> > Fair enough, I can't argue against being consistent.
> > 
> > Given that this exposes subtle new user ABI, do we have any coverage in
> > the selftests? If not, please could you add something?
> > 
> 
> Thanks, I will do that. I assume you mean the self tests in
> tools/perf/tests and not some non Perf tests?

I hadn't thought much about it, so wherever is best. It would just be nice
to have something we can run to make sure that this continues to work as
intended.

Will