On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 02:31:40AM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote: > @@ -618,6 +619,8 @@ static inline void perf_sample_data_init(struct > perf_sample_data *data, > data->weight = 0; > data->data_src.val = 0; > data->txn = 0; > + data->regs_intr.abi = PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_ABI_NONE; > + data->regs_intr.regs = NULL; > }
> +static void perf_sample_regs_intr(struct perf_regs *regs_intr,
> + struct pt_regs *regs)
> +{
> + regs_intr->regs = regs;
> + regs_intr->abi = perf_reg_abi(current);
> +}
> @@ -4800,6 +4824,20 @@ void perf_prepare_sample(struct perf_event_header
> *header,
> data->stack_user_size = stack_size;
> header->size += size;
> }
> +
> + if (sample_type & PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_INTR) {
> + /* regs dump ABI info */
> + int size = sizeof(u64);
> +
> + perf_sample_regs_intr(&data->regs_intr, regs);
> +
> + if (data->regs_intr.regs) {
> + u64 mask = event->attr.sample_regs_intr;
> + size += hweight64(mask) * sizeof(u64);
> + }
> +
> + header->size += size;
> + }
Given that the prepare_sample hunk sets both regs_intr fields, the
addition to perf_sample_data_init() is entirely superfluous, no?
pgp2ZGuXJiy1i.pgp
Description: PGP signature
