On 18 January 2018 at 10:06, Will Deacon <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
As far as I can tell spe_pmu->pmu->nr_addr_filters isn't set anywhere. A such SPE isn't concerned here. Mathieu > > Will
