On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 07:02:22AM -0800, Milind Chabbi wrote: > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 6:15 AM, Jiri Olsa <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 07:04:40AM -0800, Milind Chabbi wrote: > >> Hi Jirka, > >> > >> I see the tabs in my sent email, do you have suggestions on how best to > >> send this patch so that the tabs are preserved by the email client? > >> Can anybody else also check if they received with/without tabs? > >> > >> release_bp_slot/reserve_bp_slot majic is not necessary since > >> _IOC_MODIFY_BREAKPOINT ioctl modifies an already registered breakpoint > >> without affecting the count of breakpoints active. > > > > but AFAICS you allow to change the breakpoint type (bp_type) > > and slot counts are based on the breakpoint type > > > > jirka > > Jirka, > I am not able to fully understand your concern. > Can you point to a code file and line related to your observation? > The patch is modeled after the existing modify_user_hw_breakpoint() function > present in events/hw_breakpoint.c; don't you see this problem in that code?
the reserve_bp_slot/release_bp_slot functions manage counts for current breakpoints based on its type those counts are cumulated in here: static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct bp_cpuinfo, bp_cpuinfo[TYPE_MAX]); you allow to change the breakpoint type, so I'd expect to see some code that release slot count for old type and take new one (if it's available) jirka
