On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 05:54:36PM +0000, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> 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.
Ah yeah, I forget the dispatcher is what genirq sees as the handler. In
which case your idea looks right.
Sorry for the noise.
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
