On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 02:14:25PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
[...]
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/bp_signal.c b/tools/perf/tests/bp_signal.c
> > index c1c2c13..166f411 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/tests/bp_signal.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/tests/bp_signal.c
> > @@ -49,14 +49,6 @@ asm (
> > "__test_function:\n"
> > "incq (%rdi)\n"
> > "ret\n");
> > -#elif defined (__aarch64__)
> > -extern void __test_function(volatile long *ptr);
> > -asm (
> > - ".globl __test_function\n"
> > - "__test_function:\n"
> > - "str x30, [x0]\n"
> > - "ret\n");
> > -
> > #else
> > static void __test_function(volatile long *ptr)
> > {
> > @@ -302,10 +294,15 @@ bool test__bp_signal_is_supported(void)
> > * stepping into the SIGIO handler and getting stuck on the
> > * breakpointed instruction.
> > *
> > + * Since arm64 has the same issue with arm for the single-step
> > + * handling, this case also gets suck on the breakpointed
> > + * instruction.
>
> Freudian slip?
:D sorry for typo: s/suck/stuck.
Thanks for review and will send a patch to fix it.
Thanks,
Leo Yan
