Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 28 Jun 2022 14:11:36 +0000
From:   Sebastian Ene <sebastianene@google.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@linux-watchdog.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, qperret@google.com,
        maz@kernel.org, linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, will@kernel.org,
        vdonnefort@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/2] misc: Add a mechanism to detect stalls on guest
 vCPUs
Message-ID: <YrsMGAVljIcypDl4@google.com>
References: <20220627102810.1811311-1-sebastianene@google.com>
 <20220627102810.1811311-3-sebastianene@google.com>
 <b87a4407-29fd-4715-1394-ae6afaf4a192@roeck-us.net>
 <YrrP3NvAuxso0rzO@google.com>
 <194f5edc-5877-af3f-9aa1-be1e275ea304@roeck-us.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <194f5edc-5877-af3f-9aa1-be1e275ea304@roeck-us.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 07:00:05AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 6/28/22 02:54, Sebastian Ene wrote:
> [ ... ]
> > > > +static struct platform_device *virt_dev;
> > > > +

Hi,

> > > 
> > > virt_dev is only used to call platform_set_drvdata() and platform_get_drvdata()
> > > on it. Why not just have a static variable named vm_stall_detect ?
> > > 
> > 
> > I think this should also work. I wanted to make use of the provided APIs
> > like platform_set/platform_get.
> > 
> 
> That doesn't mean such APIs should be used just to get used, though.
> 

I will remove these calls and keep it static.

> > > > +
> > > > +	vm_stall_detect = (struct vm_stall_detect_s __percpu *)
> > > > +		platform_get_drvdata(virt_dev);
> > > 
> > > platform_get_drvdata() returns void *; typecast to it is unnecessary.
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > I needed this typecast because the variable is per-cpu and some
> > compilers(eg. gcc for ARCH=h8300) complain if we don't specify this
> > hint.
> > 
> Hmm, interesting. I didn't know that. We live and learn.
> Though h8300 is gone now :-)

I had some Intel robot complaining about this in my previous series(v5) and
I fixed the warnings by adding these compiler hints.

> 
> Did you reply in private on purpose ?
> 

I misused my CC list but I will fix this in my reply. 

> Thanks,
> Guenter

Thanks for the response,
Seb