> if (sw_filter & PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_PLM_ALL) {
> + flag = false;
Would it be possible to use a more meaningful name than flag? Perhaps
indicating what is it flagging?
> +
> + if (sw_filter & PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_USER) {
> + if (to_plm == POWER_ADDR_USER)
> + flag = true;
> + }
> +
> + if (sw_filter & PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_KERNEL) {
> + if (to_plm == POWER_ADDR_KERNEL)
> + flag = true;
> + }
> +
> + if (sw_filter & PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_HV) {
> + if (cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_HVMODE)) {
> + if (to_plm == POWER_ADDR_KERNEL)
> + flag = true;
> + }
> + }
Is there any reason these are nested ifs rather than &&s?
> +
> + if (!flag)
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> @@ -700,7 +710,6 @@ static u64 power8_bhrb_filter_map(u64 branch_sample_type,
> u64 *bhrb_filter)
> if (branch_sample_type) {
> /* Multiple filters will be processed in SW */
> pmu_bhrb_filter = 0;
> - *bhrb_filter = 0;
> return pmu_bhrb_filter;
> } else {
> /* Individual filter will be processed in HW */
What's the justification for the removal of this line? You added it in
the previous patch...
Regards,
Daniel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
