Mathieu Poirier <[email protected]> writes: > Hi Alex,
Hi Mathieu, > This changes the behavior we used to have. Now a range filter with a size of > 0 > will be treated as start filter rather than an error. See below on a possible > way of fixing this. Not really. Currently we have 2 drivers using this and both reject the type=range&&size==0 filters with either -EOPNOTSUPP or -EINVAL. With this change, PT will still reject it as it doesn't support single address triggers, but Coresight will treat it as if it was a single address filter. Which makes sense, because that's what a range of size zero is. Note, that a range that covers one instruction has to be at least size==1 (and I'm guessing size==4 for Coresight, but I may be wrong). So yes, this does change the existing behavior, but in doing so it removes the ambiguity of zero sized ranges. > if (filter->action == PERF_ADDR_FILTER_ACTION_RANGE) But "range" is not an action, it's a type of a filter. It determines the condition that triggers an action. An action, however, is what we do when the condition comes true. Regards, -- Alex
