On 3 February 2023 08:04:00 GMT, Atish Patra <atishp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 3:34 AM Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 03:12:43PM -0800, Atish Patra wrote:
>> > This patch only adds barebone structure of perf implementation. Most of
>> > the function returns zero at this point and will be implemented
>> > fully in the future.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atishp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > +/* Per virtual pmu counter data */
>> > +struct kvm_pmc {
>> > + u8 idx;
>> > + struct perf_event *perf_event;
>> > + uint64_t counter_val;
>>
>> CI also complained that here, and elsewhere, you used uint64_t rather
>> than u64. Am I missing a reason for not using the regular types?
>>
>
>Nope. It was a simple oversight. I will fix it.
>Do you have a link to the CI report so that I can address them all in v5 ?
Try:
:%s/uint64_t/u64
It was just this patch, and checkpatch --strict should show it.
>
>> Thanks,
>> Conor.
>>
>> > + union sbi_pmu_ctr_info cinfo;
>> > + /* Event monitoring status */
>> > + bool started;
>
>
>
