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-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
