On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 03:42:41PM +0000, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> On 10/12/15 15:32, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 06:03:25PM +0000, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
>
>
> >>+static void __maybe_unused
> >>+pmu_disable_counters(struct cci_pmu *cci_pmu, unsigned long *mask)
> >>+{
> >>+ int i;
> >>+
> >>+ for (i = 0; i < cci_pmu->num_cntrs; i++) {
> >>+ if (pmu_counter_is_enabled(cci_pmu, i)) {
> >>+ set_bit(i, mask);
> >>+ pmu_disable_counter(cci_pmu, i);
> >>+ } else
> >>+ clear_bit(i, mask);
> >
> >Can we not assume a clean mask to begin with?
>
> If we force the caller to pass a clean mask, yes we could. I am fine
> with either approach.
>
> >
> >>+ }
> >>+}
> >>+
> >>+/*
> >>+ * Restore the status of the counters. Reversal of the
> >>pmu_disable_counters().
> >>+ * For each counter set in the mask, enable the counter back.
> >>+ */
> >>+static void __maybe_unused
> >>+pmu_restore_counters(struct cci_pmu *cci_pmu, unsigned long *mask)
> >
> >This would probably be better with s/restore/enable/ for consistency
> >with pmu_disable_counters.
>
> I had thought as well, but then chose restore as we don't enable all the
> counters. Given that we pass a mask argument, it is fine to change it to
> enable and will do that in the next one.
How about s/disable/save/ instead, following local_irq_{save,restore} ?
It just felt odd having disable/restore as a pairing.
Mark
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
