On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 10:54:02AM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:

On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 7:30 AM Alexandre Ghiti [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

riscv now supports mmaping hardware counters to userspace so adapt the test
to run on this architecture.

Signed-off-by: Alexandre Ghiti <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Atish Patra <redacted>
---
 tools/perf/tests/mmap-basic.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/mmap-basic.c b/tools/perf/tests/mmap-basic.c
index e68ca6229756..f5075ca774f8 100644
--- a/tools/perf/tests/mmap-basic.c
+++ b/tools/perf/tests/mmap-basic.c

@@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ static struct test_case tests__basic_mmap[] = {
                         "permissions"),
        TEST_CASE_REASON("User space counter reading of instructions",
                         mmap_user_read_instr,
-#if defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__aarch64__)
+#if defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__aarch64__) || __riscv_xlen == 64

Same comment relating to the guard, why not defined(__riscv) ?

__riscv_xlen will always be defined for all riscv targets, so also
checking __riscv isn't necessary when a specific bit width also needs
to be checked. __riscv is useful for checks that don't need to be
concerned with the bit width. Grepping, I see instances of both
"defined(__riscv) && __riscv_xlen ==" and just "__riscv_xlen ==".
IMHO, the former should be reduced to the latter, rather than creating
more instances of them.

Thanks,
drew

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel