2022-08-05 21:02:42

by Christophe JAILLET

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH v2] perf/arm_pmu_platform: Fix an error message related to dev_err_probe() usage

dev_err() is a macro that expand dev_fmt, but dev_err_probe() is a
function and cannot perform this macro expansion.

So hard code the "hw perfevents: " prefix and dd a comment explaining why.

Fixes: 11fa1dc8020a ("perf/arm_pmu_platform: Use dev_err_probe() for IRQ errors")
Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <[email protected]>
---
Untested, but I can't see how it could work.

v1 --> v2
- fix a typo in the comment
---
drivers/perf/arm_pmu_platform.c | 7 +++++--
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_platform.c b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_platform.c
index 513de1f54e2d..02cca4b8f0fd 100644
--- a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_platform.c
+++ b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_platform.c
@@ -101,8 +101,11 @@ static int pmu_parse_irqs(struct arm_pmu *pmu)
struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;

num_irqs = platform_irq_count(pdev);
- if (num_irqs < 0)
- return dev_err_probe(dev, num_irqs, "unable to count PMU IRQs\n");
+ if (num_irqs < 0) {
+ /* dev_err_probe() does not handle dev_fmt, so hard-code the prefix */
+ return dev_err_probe(dev, num_irqs,
+ "hw perfevents: unable to count PMU IRQs\n");
+ }

/*
* In this case we have no idea which CPUs are covered by the PMU.
--
2.34.1


2022-08-08 15:03:21

by Robin Murphy

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf/arm_pmu_platform: Fix an error message related to dev_err_probe() usage

On 2022-08-05 21:55, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> dev_err() is a macro that expand dev_fmt, but dev_err_probe() is a
> function and cannot perform this macro expansion.
>
> So hard code the "hw perfevents: " prefix and dd a comment explaining why.
>
> Fixes: 11fa1dc8020a ("perf/arm_pmu_platform: Use dev_err_probe() for IRQ errors")
> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <[email protected]>
> ---
> Untested, but I can't see how it could work.
>
> v1 --> v2
> - fix a typo in the comment
> ---
> drivers/perf/arm_pmu_platform.c | 7 +++++--
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_platform.c b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_platform.c
> index 513de1f54e2d..02cca4b8f0fd 100644
> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_platform.c
> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_platform.c
> @@ -101,8 +101,11 @@ static int pmu_parse_irqs(struct arm_pmu *pmu)
> struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>
> num_irqs = platform_irq_count(pdev);
> - if (num_irqs < 0)
> - return dev_err_probe(dev, num_irqs, "unable to count PMU IRQs\n");
> + if (num_irqs < 0) {
> + /* dev_err_probe() does not handle dev_fmt, so hard-code the prefix */
> + return dev_err_probe(dev, num_irqs,
> + "hw perfevents: unable to count PMU IRQs\n");

Why not use dev_fmt directly? But even better, is there any practical
reason why this couldn't be fixed at the source by indirecting
dev_err_probe() through a macro wrapper just like all its friends:

#define dev_err_probe(dev, err, fmt, ...) \
_dev_err_probe(dev, err, dev_fmt(fmt), ##__VA_ARGS__)

?

Thanks,
Robin.

> + }
>
> /*
> * In this case we have no idea which CPUs are covered by the PMU.

2022-08-10 21:12:43

by Christophe JAILLET

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf/arm_pmu_platform: Fix an error message related to dev_err_probe() usage

Le 08/08/2022 à 16:57, Robin Murphy a écrit :
> On 2022-08-05 21:55, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
>> dev_err() is a macro that expand dev_fmt, but dev_err_probe() is a
>> function and cannot perform this macro expansion.
>>
>> So hard code the "hw perfevents: " prefix and dd a comment explaining
>> why.
>>
>> Fixes: 11fa1dc8020a ("perf/arm_pmu_platform: Use dev_err_probe() for
>> IRQ errors")
>> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> Untested, but I can't see how it could work.
>>
>> v1 --> v2
>>    - fix a typo in the comment
>> ---
>>   drivers/perf/arm_pmu_platform.c | 7 +++++--
>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_platform.c
>> b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_platform.c
>> index 513de1f54e2d..02cca4b8f0fd 100644
>> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_platform.c
>> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_platform.c
>> @@ -101,8 +101,11 @@ static int pmu_parse_irqs(struct arm_pmu *pmu)
>>       struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>>       num_irqs = platform_irq_count(pdev);
>> -    if (num_irqs < 0)
>> -        return dev_err_probe(dev, num_irqs, "unable to count PMU
>> IRQs\n");
>> +    if (num_irqs < 0) {
>> +        /* dev_err_probe() does not handle dev_fmt, so hard-code the
>> prefix */
>> +        return dev_err_probe(dev, num_irqs,
>> +                     "hw perfevents: unable to count PMU IRQs\n");
>
> Why not use dev_fmt directly? But even better, is there any practical
> reason why this couldn't be fixed at the source by indirecting
> dev_err_probe() through a macro wrapper just like all its friends:
>
> #define dev_err_probe(dev, err, fmt, ...) \
>     _dev_err_probe(dev, err, dev_fmt(fmt), ##__VA_ARGS__)
>
> ?

Looks nice.

I'll propose it in a week or so, unless s.o. does it in the mean-time.

CJ

>
> Thanks,
> Robin.
>
>> +    }
>>       /*
>>        * In this case we have no idea which CPUs are covered by the PMU.
>