On 3/26/2019 9:47 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019, Liang, Kan wrote:
On 3/25/2019 8:11 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
-#define REG_RESERVED (~((1ULL << PERF_REG_X86_MAX) - 1ULL))
+#define REG_RESERVED 0
What's the point of having this around?
I once thought it may be kept for future extension if we have more regs.
But, yes, we should remove it completely for now.
Thanks,
Kan
int perf_reg_validate(u64 mask)
{
if (!mask || mask & REG_RESERVED)
return -EINVAL;
mask & 0 == 0, right? So which bits are you checking here?
Thanks,
tglx
