On 24/10/2023 13:42, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Jani,
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 06:02:55PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
It's tedious to duplicate the container_of() everywhere. Add a helper.
Also do the logical steps of first getting from struct perf_event to
struct i915_pmu, and then from struct i915_pmu to struct
drm_i915_private if needed, instead of perf_event->i915->pmu. Not all
places even need the i915 pointer.
Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c | 45 +++++++++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c
index dcae2fcd8d36..d45b40ec6d47 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c
@@ -31,6 +31,11 @@
static cpumask_t i915_pmu_cpumask;
static unsigned int i915_pmu_target_cpu = -1;
+static struct i915_pmu *event_to_pmu(struct perf_event *event)
I would call it perfevent (or perf_event), event is too generic.
We have other kind of events, too.
Fair enough.
Counter argument is that i915_pmu.c consistently names this event (which
is likely lifted from other PMU drivers) so is the proposal to churn it
all, or create an inconsistency?
Regards,
Tvrtko
+{
+ return container_of(event->pmu, struct i915_pmu, base);
+}
+
static struct drm_i915_private *pmu_to_i915(struct i915_pmu *pmu)
{
return container_of(pmu, struct drm_i915_private, pmu);
@@ -510,8 +515,8 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart i915_sample(struct hrtimer *hrtimer)
static void i915_pmu_event_destroy(struct perf_event *event)
{
- struct drm_i915_private *i915 =
- container_of(event->pmu, typeof(*i915), pmu.base);
+ struct i915_pmu *pmu = event_to_pmu(event);
+ struct drm_i915_private *i915 = pmu_to_i915(pmu);
perf_event_to_i915() ?
Nah. Most places that need i915 also need pmu. Feels a bit much to add a
helper to combine two helpers.
Thanks for the review.
BR,
Jani.
Andi
