On 13/03/2025 14:06, Andrew Jones wrote: > 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. Indeed, that is not fixing anything (hence no Fixes tag), it compiles as a side effect of Kconfig dependencies. > 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. Yes, as I said, I'd be advocating to remove all that ifdefery mess. Thanks, Clément > > > 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
