On 7/12/24 17:08, Reinette Chatre wrote:
On 7/3/24 2:48 PM, Babu Moger wrote:
@@ -662,6 +666,8 @@ void __check_limbo(struct rdt_mon_domain *d, bool
force_free);
void rdt_domain_reconfigure_cdp(struct rdt_resource *r);
void __init resctrl_file_fflags_init(const char *config,
unsigned long fflags);
+void resctrl_arch_mbm_evt_config(struct rdt_hw_mon_domain *hw_dom);
+unsigned int mon_event_config_index_get(u32 evtid);
void rdt_staged_configs_clear(void);
bool closid_allocated(unsigned int closid);
int resctrl_find_cleanest_closid(void);
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c
b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c
index 7a93a6d2b2de..b96b0a8bd7d3 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c
@@ -1256,6 +1256,28 @@ int __init rdt_get_mon_l3_config(struct
rdt_resource *r)
return 0;
}
+void resctrl_arch_mbm_evt_config(struct rdt_hw_mon_domain *hw_dom)
A function is expected to have a verb in its name and the verb here seems
to be
"config", which does not seem appropriate and creates confusion with
resctrl_arch_event_config_set(). How about resctrl_arch_mbm_evt_config_init()
with proper initializer of the config values to also cover case when
events are
not configurable (INVALID_CONFIG_VALUE introduced in next patch?) ?
Sorry. I am not clear on this comment. Can you please elaborate?