On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 8:36 PM Yangyu Chen <cyy@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Since the value in KEY_CPUPERF_0 is not bitmask, remove the wrong code > in hwprobe.h. > > Signed-off-by: Yangyu Chen <cyy@xxxxxxxxxxxx> I'd expect a Fixes tag, and ideally some discussion on the reasoning and ramifications of this change. I posted the other possible fix, declaring a new key, at [1], mostly so we could see the two options and discuss. I'm okay with either patch. -Evan [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240529182649.2635123-1-evan@xxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u > --- > arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h | 1 - > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h > index 630507dff5ea..f24cad22bbe1 100644 > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h > @@ -20,7 +20,6 @@ static inline bool hwprobe_key_is_bitmask(__s64 key) > switch (key) { > case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR: > case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_0: > - case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_CPUPERF_0: > return true; > } > > -- > 2.45.1 >
