Why do you need this change? It almost looks as if you're papering over> a bug where add_sample should not be called at all.
Yeah,this change is to enhance the robust of oprofile. When usingperformace counter manually(writting control register in a module, noneed to use the oprofile),I usually make kernel panic if I do notinitialize the oprofile and enable the overflow interrupt carelessly.So, this change can avoid this panic. :D
2007/7/24, Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:> On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 01:20:27PM +0400, Dajie Tan wrote:>> > This patch adds support for profiling Loongson 2E. It's been tested on> > FuLong mini PC(loongson2e inside).>> First of all, your patch has been garbled when mailing.>>> [.. Lots of arch/mips code deleted ...]>> No complaints upto this point. But:>> > diff -urN b/drivers/oprofile/cpu_buffer.c a/drivers/oprofile/cpu_buffer.c> > --- b/drivers/oprofile/cpu_buffer.c 2007-07-24 13:00:54.000000000 +0800> > +++ a/drivers/oprofile/cpu_buffer.c 2007-07-19 08:22:15.000000000 +0800> > @@ -148,6 +148,10 @@> > unsigned long pc, unsigned long event)> > {> > struct op_sample * entry = &cpu_buf->buffer[cpu_buf->head_pos];> > +> > + if(!entry)> > + return;> > +> > entry->eip = pc;> > entry->event = event;> > increment_head(cpu_buf);>> Why do you need this change? It almost looks as if you're papering over> a bug where add_sample should not be called at all.>> Ralf>
-- 为天地立心为生民立命为往圣继绝学为万世开太平
