Re: [PATCH 02/23] perf: Unified API to record selective sets of archregisters

[Jiri Olsa]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 04:58:34PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 07:39:00PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 06:42:36PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 05:47:53PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > 
> > SNIP
> > 
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/perf_regs.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/perf_regs.h
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 0000000..0397bfc
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/perf_regs.h
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
> > > > +#ifndef _ASM_X86_PERF_REGS_H
> > > > +#define _ASM_X86_PERF_REGS_H
> > > > +
> > > > +enum perf_event_x86_regs {
> > > > +	PERF_REG_X86_AX,
> > > > +	PERF_REG_X86_BX,
> > > > +	PERF_REG_X86_CX,
> > > > +	PERF_REG_X86_DX,
> > > > +	PERF_REG_X86_SI,
> > > > +	PERF_REG_X86_DI,
> > > > +	PERF_REG_X86_BP,
> > > > +	PERF_REG_X86_SP,
> > > > +	PERF_REG_X86_IP,
> > > > +	PERF_REG_X86_FLAGS,
> > > > +	PERF_REG_X86_CS,
> > > > +	PERF_REG_X86_DS,
> > > > +	PERF_REG_X86_ES,
> > > > +	PERF_REG_X86_FS,
> > > > +	PERF_REG_X86_GS,
> > > > +	PERF_REG_X86_R8,
> > > > +	PERF_REG_X86_R9,
> > > > +	PERF_REG_X86_R10,
> > > > +	PERF_REG_X86_R11,
> > > > +	PERF_REG_X86_R12,
> > > > +	PERF_REG_X86_R13,
> > > > +	PERF_REG_X86_R14,
> > > > +	PERF_REG_X86_R15,
> > > > +	PERF_REG_X86_SS,
> > > > +
> > > > +	/* non ABI */
> > > > +	PERF_REG_X86_64_MAX = PERF_REG_X86_SS + 1,
> > > 
> > > SS also exist in 32 bits, right?
> > > Although I guess userspace doesn't care much.
> > 
> > yes it's there
> 
> But PERF_REG_X86_SS is above PERF_REG_X86_32_MAX.

aaah, crap... you're right ;)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/