Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <1548855476.2161.2.camel@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] thermal/intel_powerclamp: fix __percpu declaration of
 worker_data
From:   Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Wed, 30 Jan 2019 21:37:56 +0800
In-Reply-To: <20190130095917.7uxdxrjvtaeydcol@pathway.suse.cz>
References: <20190119161523.87999-1-luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
         <20190130095917.7uxdxrjvtaeydcol@pathway.suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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 <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  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 <pmladek@suse.com>
> 
applied and queued for next -rc.

thanks,
rui

> Best Regards,
> Petr