lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] basic perf support for sparc

    * David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:

    > From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
    > Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:25:10 +0200
    >
    > > -#define NR_SYSCALLS 327
    > > +#define NR_SYSCALLS 328
    >
    > When you increase this value, you have to add entries to all of
    > the syscall tables. The syscall dispatch checks against this as a
    > limit, so if you don't explicitly add an entry to all the tables,
    > it's possible to deref garbage past the end of the table and try
    > to jump to it as a syscall.
    >
    > And if you somehow arrange for adding a compat syscall entry here
    > for this, and build the perf tools 32-bit, you can forego all of
    > these rediculious issues with trying to get a 64-bit BFD library.
    > If the perf tools are written portably and use types like u64 etc.
    > for holding addresses and similar things, this should not be an
    > issue.
    >
    > The 32-bit sparc BFD library has full support for all the 64-bit
    > binary formats and whatnot.

    That would work too. On x86 perf works all across the compatibility
    spectrum, and we do use strict u32/u64 typing and ABIs.

    Note that we'll also solve (remove) the binutils-devel dependency,
    it creates a way too large set of external build constraints for
    perf. But in any case both 32-bit and 64-bit perf should work just
    fine.

    Ingo


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-08-02 22:27    [W:0.022 / U:62.908 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site