Hi Mathieu, On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 03:46:58PM -0700, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 12:09:12PM +0000, Mike Leach wrote: > > Hi Leo, > > > > I think there is an issue here in that your modification assumes that > > all cpus in the system are of the same ETM type. The original routine > > allowed for differing ETM types, thus differing cpu ETM field lengths > > between ETMv4 / ETMv3, the field size was used after the relevant > > magic number for the cpu ETM was read. > > > > You have replaced two different sizes - with a single calculated size. > > I usually go through an entire patchset before looking at the comments people > have made. In this case Mike and I are coming to the exact same conclusion.
Agreed, now this work depends on Mike's patch for extending metadata version; otherwise if without Mike's patch, it will cause compability issue. > I will look at Mike's patch on Monday. Cool! Thanks for review, Leo