2019-01-19 16:18:03

by Luc Van Oostenryck

Subject: [PATCH] thermal/intel_powerclamp: fix __percpu declaration of worker_data

This variable is declared as:
static struct powerclamp_worker_data * __percpu worker_data;
In other words, a percpu pointer to struct ...

But this variable not used like so but as a pointer to a percpu
struct powerclamp_worker_data.

So fix the declaration as:
static struct powerclamp_worker_data __percpu *worker_data;

This also quiets Sparse's warnings from __verify_pcpu_ptr(), like:
494:49: warning: incorrect type in initializer (different address spaces)
494:49: expected void const [noderef] <asn:3> *__vpp_verify
494:49: got struct powerclamp_worker_data *

Signed-off-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <[email protected]>
---
drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c b/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c
index 7571f7c2e..c7cba20bd 100644
--- a/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c
+++ b/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c
@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ struct powerclamp_worker_data {
bool clamping;
};

-static struct powerclamp_worker_data * __percpu worker_data;
+static struct powerclamp_worker_data __percpu * worker_data;
static struct thermal_cooling_device *cooling_dev;
static unsigned long *cpu_clamping_mask; /* bit map for tracking per cpu
* clamping kthread worker
--
2.20.0

2019-01-30 10:01:05

by Petr Mladek

Subject: Re: [PATCH] thermal/intel_powerclamp: fix __percpu declaration of worker_data

On Sat 2019-01-19 17:15:23, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> This variable is declared as:
> static struct powerclamp_worker_data * __percpu worker_data;
> In other words, a percpu pointer to struct ...
>
> But this variable not used like so but as a pointer to a percpu
> struct powerclamp_worker_data.
>
> So fix the declaration as:
> static struct powerclamp_worker_data __percpu *worker_data;
>
> This also quiets Sparse's warnings from __verify_pcpu_ptr(), like:
> 494:49: warning: incorrect type in initializer (different address spaces)
> 494:49: expected void const [noderef] <asn:3> *__vpp_verify
> 494:49: got struct powerclamp_worker_data *
>
> Signed-off-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c b/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c
> index 7571f7c2e..c7cba20bd 100644
> --- a/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c
> +++ b/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c
> @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ struct powerclamp_worker_data {
> bool clamping;
> };
>
> -static struct powerclamp_worker_data * __percpu worker_data;
> +static struct powerclamp_worker_data __percpu * worker_data;

Makes perfect sense. I wonder why I wrote it in the wrong order.

Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <[email protected]>

Best Regards,
Petr

2019-01-30 13:39:51

by Zhang, Rui

Subject: Re: [PATCH] thermal/intel_powerclamp: fix __percpu declaration of worker_data

On 三, 2019-01-30 at 10:59 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Sat 2019-01-19 17:15:23, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> >
> > This variable is declared as:
> > static struct powerclamp_worker_data * __percpu worker_data;
> > In other words, a percpu pointer to struct ...
> >
> > But this variable not used like so but as a pointer to a percpu
> > struct powerclamp_worker_data.
> >
> > So fix the declaration as:
> > static struct powerclamp_worker_data __percpu *worker_data;
> >
> > This also quiets Sparse's warnings from __verify_pcpu_ptr(), like:
> >   494:49: warning: incorrect type in initializer (different address
> > spaces)
> >   494:49:    expected void const [noderef] <asn:3> *__vpp_verify
> >   494:49:    got struct powerclamp_worker_data *
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <[email protected]>
> > ---
> >  drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c
> > b/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c
> > index 7571f7c2e..c7cba20bd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c
> > @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ struct powerclamp_worker_data {
> >   bool clamping;
> >  };
> >  
> > -static struct powerclamp_worker_data * __percpu worker_data;
> > +static struct powerclamp_worker_data __percpu * worker_data;
> Makes perfect sense. I wonder why I wrote it in the wrong order.
>
> Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <[email protected]>
>
applied and queued for next -rc.

thanks,
rui

> Best Regards,
> Petr

2019-01-30 13:42:48

by Zhang, Rui

Subject: Re: [PATCH] thermal/intel_powerclamp: fix __percpu declaration of worker_data

On 三, 2019-01-30 at 21:37 +0800, Zhang Rui wrote:
> On 三, 2019-01-30 at 10:59 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> >
> > On Sat 2019-01-19 17:15:23, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > This variable is declared as:
> > > static struct powerclamp_worker_data * __percpu worker_data;
> > > In other words, a percpu pointer to struct ...
> > >
> > > But this variable not used like so but as a pointer to a percpu
> > > struct powerclamp_worker_data.
> > >
> > > So fix the declaration as:
> > > static struct powerclamp_worker_data __percpu *worker_data;
> > >
> > > This also quiets Sparse's warnings from __verify_pcpu_ptr(),
> > > like:
> > >   494:49: warning: incorrect type in initializer (different
> > > address
> > > spaces)
> > >   494:49:    expected void const [noderef] <asn:3> *__vpp_verify
> > >   494:49:    got struct powerclamp_worker_data *
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c
> > > b/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c
> > > index 7571f7c2e..c7cba20bd 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c
> > > @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ struct powerclamp_worker_data {
> > >   bool clamping;
> > >  };
> > >  
> > > -static struct powerclamp_worker_data * __percpu worker_data;
> > > +static struct powerclamp_worker_data __percpu * worker_data;
> > Makes perfect sense. I wonder why I wrote it in the wrong order.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <[email protected]>
> >
> applied and queued for next -rc.
>
well, just with a minor change to get rid of checkpatch warning.

ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
#121: FILE: drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c:104:
+static struct powerclamp_worker_data __percpu * worker_data;

total: 1 errors, 0 warnings, 8 lines checked

thanks,
rui
> thanks,
> rui
>
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Petr