Re: [PATCH] perf vendor events arm64 AmpereOneX: Fix misspelled PublicDescription keys

[James Clark <james.clark@linaro.org>]

On 11/11/2026 13:35, TAKANO Mitsuhiro wrote:
> On 2026-11-11 10:16, James Clark wrote:
> 
>> IMO I would rather have something that's incredibly strict and simple,
>> or nothing at all. Having to work around edge cases and report near
>> misses doesn't sound great.
> 
> Agreed, and the near-miss report is gone.  The series is posted again:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-perf-users/20261111132622.2349165-1-takano32@gmail.com/
> 
> The check is now a fixed list of the 51 keys a json object under arch/ may
> carry: 47 of them jevents.py reads, one more metric.py reads, and three are
> read by nothing although the tables hold them (Counter, CountersNumFixed,
> CountersNumGeneric).  A key outside that list is reported with the object
> that carries it.  There is no cut-off, no similarity and nothing that
> depends on what a run of the generator happened to read, so there is no
> edge case left to work around.
> 

The linked patches seem like a bigger change than what I'd expect. I'm 
not sure that's necessary for something conceptually as simple as 
"validate the json files".

I'm also a bit lost about the relationship between "[PATCH 0/3] perf 
jevents: Report the JSON keys that jevents.py never reads" and "[PATCH] 
perf jevents: Check the JSON keys that jevents.py never reads".


> It still runs as "make check-jevents" and as a perf test rather than as part
> of the build, and on the tree today it reports exactly the two misspellings
> we have, the 16 in this file and 3 in the AMD tables, so it wants those
> fixes in front of it or together with it.
> 
> The one thing I did not do is put the list in a json schema file, because
> perf's build would then require jsonschema, which it does not use today and
> which is not in every builder's python.  The list holds the same names that

It could run if it exists and skip if not. Or we could make it a 
requirement, but that would require some agreement. The docs builder 
already has a pip requirements.txt file.

Even without jsonschema I can't see why a validator can't be written in 
less than 10 lines.

> a schema with "additionalProperties": false would say.  If you would rather
> have the schema file and take the dependency, it is a small change from
> here.
>