Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753098AbaAQPEt (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:04:49 -0500 Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com ([217.140.96.50]:34291 "EHLO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752433AbaAQPEp (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:04:45 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 15:04:12 +0000 From: Will Deacon To: Stephen Boyd Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] ARM: perf_event: Support percpu irqs for the CPU PMU Message-ID: <20140117150411.GI16003@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1389808535-23852-1-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> <1389808535-23852-2-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> <20140115205427.GB26193@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140115205427.GB26193@codeaurora.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Stephen, On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 08:54:27PM +0000, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 01/15, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c b/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c > > index 789d846a9184..e76750980b38 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c > > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c > > @@ -295,9 +297,15 @@ validate_group(struct perf_event *event) > > > > static irqreturn_t armpmu_dispatch_irq(int irq, void *dev) > > { > > - struct arm_pmu *armpmu = (struct arm_pmu *) dev; > > - struct platform_device *plat_device = armpmu->plat_device; > > - struct arm_pmu_platdata *plat = dev_get_platdata(&plat_device->dev); > > + struct arm_pmu *armpmu; > > + struct platform_device *plat_device; > > + struct arm_pmu_platdata *plat; > > + > > + if (irq_is_percpu(irq)) > > + dev = *(struct arm_pmu_cpu **)dev; > > Oh. I just realized that struct arm_pmu_cpu doesn't even exist. This > still compiles though because we're dealing with a void pointer. > > Perhaps its better to just do > > dev = *(void **)dev; > > here. Can you fix that up when applying? Otherwise I'll do it on > the next send if there are more comments. Shouldn't that actually be some per_cpu accessor like this_cpu_ptr? Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/