On 01/17/14 07:04, Will Deacon wrote:
> 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?
>
Nope. The genirq layer unwraps the per_cpu pointer and passes it to the
handler.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
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
