Re: [PATCH v4] tools/perf: Fix the mask in regs_dump__printf and print_sample_iregs

2016-06-22 Thread Madhavan Srinivasan
On Thursday 23 June 2016 10:48 AM, Yury Norov wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 10:31:16AM +0530, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote: >> When decoding the perf_regs mask in regs_dump__printf(), >> we loop through the mask using find_first_bit and find_next_bit functions. >> "mask" is of type "u64", but

Re: [PATCH v4] tools/perf: Fix the mask in regs_dump__printf and print_sample_iregs

2016-06-22 Thread Yury Norov
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 10:31:16AM +0530, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote: > When decoding the perf_regs mask in regs_dump__printf(), > we loop through the mask using find_first_bit and find_next_bit functions. > "mask" is of type "u64", but sent as a "unsigned long *" to > lib functions along with

[PATCH v4] tools/perf: Fix the mask in regs_dump__printf and print_sample_iregs

2016-06-22 Thread Madhavan Srinivasan
When decoding the perf_regs mask in regs_dump__printf(), we loop through the mask using find_first_bit and find_next_bit functions. "mask" is of type "u64", but sent as a "unsigned long *" to lib functions along with sizeof(). While the exisitng code works fine in most of the case, the logic is