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:   Sat, 29 Jul 2023 09:38:19 +0200
From:   Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>
To:     Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>
Cc:     Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@rivosinc.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@atishpatra.org>,
        Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
        =?utf-8?B?UsOpbWk=?= Denis-Courmont <remi@remlab.net>,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Atish Patra <atishp@rivosinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/10] perf: tests: Adapt mmap-basic.c for riscv
Message-ID: <20230729-b5ec43a48d67caf13025fafe@orel>
References: <20230727141428.962286-1-alexghiti@rivosinc.com>
 <20230727141428.962286-11-alexghiti@rivosinc.com>
 <CAP-5=fXvqJk9hA51pDSXodEWSP4DzN+RJ1scpyzJOrxk2w5kjg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAP-5=fXvqJk9hA51pDSXodEWSP4DzN+RJ1scpyzJOrxk2w5kjg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 10:54:02AM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 7:30 AM Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@rivosinc.com> wrote:
> >
> > riscv now supports mmaping hardware counters to userspace so adapt the test
> > to run on this architecture.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@rivosinc.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Atish Patra <atishp@rivosinc.com>
> > ---
> >  tools/perf/tests/mmap-basic.c | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/mmap-basic.c b/tools/perf/tests/mmap-basic.c
> > index e68ca6229756..f5075ca774f8 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/tests/mmap-basic.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/tests/mmap-basic.c
> > @@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ static struct test_case tests__basic_mmap[] = {
> >                          "permissions"),
> >         TEST_CASE_REASON("User space counter reading of instructions",
> >                          mmap_user_read_instr,
> > -#if defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__aarch64__)
> > +#if defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__aarch64__) || __riscv_xlen == 64
> 
> Same comment relating to the guard, why not defined(__riscv) ?

__riscv_xlen will always be defined for all riscv targets, so also
checking __riscv isn't necessary when a specific bit width also needs
to be checked. __riscv is useful for checks that don't need to be
concerned with the bit width. Grepping, I see instances of both
"defined(__riscv) && __riscv_xlen ==" and just "__riscv_xlen ==".
IMHO, the former should be reduced to the latter, rather than creating
more instances of them.

Thanks,
drew