>>
>> /* Do we need to handle the stepping? */
>> if (is_default_overflow_handler(wp))
>> step = 1;
>> -
>> -unlock:
>> - rcu_read_unlock();
>> }
>> + if (min_dist > 0 && min_dist != -1) {
>> + /* No exact match found. */
>> + wp = slots[closest_match];
>> + info = counter_arch_bp(wp);
>> + info->trigger = addr;
>> + perf_bp_event(wp, regs);
>> + }
>
> Why don't we need to bother with the stepping in the case of a non-exact
> match?
Good catch. I think we do. I must have dropped that part somehow.
Pratyush, could you include the attached fixup in the next batch?
regards,
pavel
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c
index 4125c21..852c753 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c
@@ -793,6 +793,10 @@ static int watchpoint_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
info = counter_arch_bp(wp);
info->trigger = addr;
perf_bp_event(wp, regs);
+
+ /* Do we need to handle the stepping? */
+ if (is_default_overflow_handler(wp))
+ step = 1;
}
rcu_read_unlock();
