On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 13:50 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> > Should we not replace:
>> >
>> > regs.ip = 0;
>> >
>> > with that memset? It avoids the memset work in a few cases and
>> removes
>> > the then superfluous clearing
On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 13:50 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > Should we not replace:
> >
> > regs.ip = 0;
> >
> > with that memset? It avoids the memset work in a few cases and
> removes
> > the then superfluous clearing of the IP field.
> >
> We could drop it because it's covered by t
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 14:46 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>>
>> This patch fixes an uninitialized pt_regs struct in drain BTS
>> function. The pt_regs struct is propagated all the way to the
>> code_get_segment() function from perf_instruct
On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 14:46 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>
> This patch fixes an uninitialized pt_regs struct in drain BTS
> function. The pt_regs struct is propagated all the way to the
> code_get_segment() function from perf_instruction_pointer()
> and may get garbage.
>
> We cannot simply in
This patch fixes an uninitialized pt_regs struct in drain BTS
function. The pt_regs struct is propagated all the way to the
code_get_segment() function from perf_instruction_pointer()
and may get garbage.
We cannot simply inherit the actual pt_regs from the interrupt
because BTS must be flushed
5 matches
Mail list logo
