On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 04:12:13PM +0100, Clément Léger wrote: > misaligned_access_speed is defined under CONFIG_RISCV_SCALAR_MISALIGNED > but was used under CONFIG_RISCV_PROBE_UNALIGNED_ACCESS. Fix that by > using the correct config option. > > Signed-off-by: Clément Léger <cleger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > arch/riscv/kernel/traps_misaligned.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/traps_misaligned.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/traps_misaligned.c > index ffac424faa88..7fe25adf2539 100644 > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/traps_misaligned.c > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/traps_misaligned.c > @@ -362,7 +362,7 @@ static int handle_scalar_misaligned_load(struct pt_regs *regs) > > perf_sw_event(PERF_COUNT_SW_ALIGNMENT_FAULTS, 1, regs, addr); > > -#ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_PROBE_UNALIGNED_ACCESS > +#ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_SCALAR_MISALIGNED > *this_cpu_ptr(&misaligned_access_speed) = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_EMULATED; > #endif Sure, but CONFIG_RISCV_PROBE_UNALIGNED_ACCESS selects CONFIG_RISCV_SCALAR_MISALIGNED, so this isn't fixing anything. Changing it does make sense though since this line in handle_scalar_misaligned_load() "belongs" to check_unaligned_access_emulated() which is also under CONFIG_RISCV_SCALAR_MISALIGNED. Anyway, all this unaligned configs need a major cleanup. Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks, drew > > -- > 2.47.2 > > > -- > kvm-riscv mailing list > kvm-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kvm-riscv
