On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 09:59:26AM -0700, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > On 17 January 2018 at 05:31, Alexander Shishkin > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 10:50:50AM -0700, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > >> > index 39106ae61b..d7a11faac1 100644 > >> > --- a/kernel/events/core.c > >> > +++ b/kernel/events/core.c > >> > @@ -8194,7 +8194,8 @@ static void perf_event_addr_filters_apply(struct > >> > perf_event *event) > >> > * * for kernel addresses: <start address>[/<size>] > >> > * * for object files: <start > >> > address>[/<size>]@</path/to/object/file> > >> > * > >> > - * if <size> is not specified, the range is treated as a single address. > >> > + * if <size> is not specified or is zero, the range is treated as a > >> > single > >> > + * address; not valid for ACTION=="filter". > >> > >> Now that a size of 0 can't be specified with a "filter" action, I'm > >> good with that statement. > > > > Hi Mathieu, I completely lost track of this. > > > > Following is the commit I found dangilng in one of my local branches. > > Does this make sense to you? Thanks! > > Oh boy! That's a whole year ago... Give me some time to wrap my > brain around it again.
Do we need anything for SPE, or is this only applicable to certain types of tracing PMUs? Will
