On 11/11/2020 17:44, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 04:20:26PM +0000, Andr� Przywara escreveu:
>> On 11/11/2020 16:15, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>>> Em Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 01:10:51PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
>>>> Em Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 03:11:27PM +0800, Leo Yan escreveu:
>>>>> This is patch set v8 for refactoring Arm SPE trace decoding and dumping.
>>>>>
>>>>> This version addresses Andre's comment to pass parameter '&buf_len' at
>>>>> the last call arm_spe_pkt_snprintf() in the function arm_spe_pkt_desc().
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch set is cleanly applied on the top of perf/core branch
>>>>> with commit 644bf4b0f7ac ("perf jevents: Add test for arch std events").
>>>>>
>>>>> I retested this patch set on Hisilicon D06 platform with commands
>>>>> "perf report -D" and "perf script", compared the decoding results
>>>>> between with this patch set and without this patch set, "diff" tool
>>>>> shows the result as expected.
>>>>
>>>> With the patches I applied I'm getting:
>>>>
>>>> util/arm-spe-decoder/arm-spe-pkt-decoder.c: In function 'arm_spe_pkt_desc':
>>>> util/arm-spe-decoder/arm-spe-pkt-decoder.c:410:3: error: left shift count
>>>> >= width of type [-Werror]
>>>> case 1: ns = !!(packet->payload & NS_FLAG);
>>>> ^
>>>> util/arm-spe-decoder/arm-spe-pkt-decoder.c:411:4: error: left shift count
>>>> >= width of type [-Werror]
>>>> el = (packet->payload & EL_FLAG) >> 61;
>>>> ^
>>>> util/arm-spe-decoder/arm-spe-pkt-decoder.c:411:4: error: left shift count
>>>> >= width of type [-Werror]
>>>> util/arm-spe-decoder/arm-spe-pkt-decoder.c:416:3: error: left shift count
>>>> >= width of type [-Werror]
>>>> case 3: ns = !!(packet->payload & NS_FLAG);
>>>> ^
>>>> CC /tmp/build/perf/util/arm-spe-decoder/arm-spe-decoder.o
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On:
>>>>
>>>> 16 11.70 android-ndk:r12b-arm : FAIL
>>>> arm-linux-androideabi-gcc (GCC) 4.9.x 20150123 (prerelease)
>>>> 17 11.32 android-ndk:r15c-arm : FAIL
>>>> arm-linux-androideabi-gcc (GCC) 4.9.x 20150123 (prerelease)
>>>>
>>>> That were building ok before, builds still under way, perhaps its just
>>>> on these old systems...
>>>
>>> [acme@five perf]$ git bisect good
>>> cc6fa07fb1458cca3741919774eb050976471000 is the first bad commit
>>> commit cc6fa07fb1458cca3741919774eb050976471000
>>> Author: Leo Yan <leo....@linaro.org>
>>> Date: Wed Nov 11 15:11:28 2020 +0800
>>>
>>> perf arm-spe: Include bitops.h for BIT() macro
>>>
>>> Include header linux/bitops.h, directly use its BIT() macro and remove
>>> the self defined macros.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Leo Yan <leo....@linaro.org>
>>> Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przyw...@arm.com>
>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201111071149.815-2-leo....@linaro.org
>>> Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <a...@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> tools/perf/util/arm-spe-decoder/arm-spe-decoder.c | 5 +----
>>> tools/perf/util/arm-spe-decoder/arm-spe-pkt-decoder.c | 3 +--
>>> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>>
>> Ah, thanks! I think I mentioned the missing usage of BIT_ULL() in an
>> earlier review, and thought this was fixed. Possibly this gets fixed in
>> a later patch in this series, and is a temporary regression?
>
> you mean this on that patch that ditches the local BIT() macro, right?
>
> [acme@five perf]$ vim tools/perf/util/arm-spe-decoder/arm-spe-pkt-decoder.c
> [acme@five perf]$ git diff
> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/arm-spe-decoder/arm-spe-pkt-decoder.c
> b/tools/perf/util/arm-spe-decoder/arm-spe-pkt-decoder.c
> index 46ddb53a645714bb..5f65a3a70c577207 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/util/arm-spe-decoder/arm-spe-pkt-decoder.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/arm-spe-decoder/arm-spe-pkt-decoder.c
> @@ -12,8 +12,8 @@
>
> #include "arm-spe-pkt-decoder.h"
>
> -#define NS_FLAG BIT(63)
> -#define EL_FLAG (BIT(62) | BIT(61))
> +#define NS_FLAG BIT_ULL(63)
> +#define EL_FLAG (BIT_ULL(62) | BIT_ULL(61))
>
> #define SPE_HEADER0_PAD 0x0
> #define SPE_HEADER0_END 0x1
Yes, that basically happens in patch 10/22, so this will then
(trivially) clash when you rebase.
Thanks!
Andre.
> [acme@five perf]$
>
>> How do you want to handle this? Shall Leo resend, amending this patch
>> (and merging 06 and 07 on the way ;-)?
