oops, lost a line, should have been: On 9/28/15 10:00 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Or for a more concrete example, in patch 5 you do: > for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) > - val += *(((__u32 *)&per_cpu(xfsstats, cpu) + idx)); > + val += *(((__u32 *)&per_cpu(*stats, cpu) + idx)); > return val; > > and then in patch 6 you do: > > for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) > - val += *(((__u32 *)&per_cpu(*stats, cpu) + idx)); > + val += *(((__u32 *)per_cpu_ptr(stats, cpu) + idx)); > > return val; > > But this is unrelated to the purpose of patch 6; it should just be fixed > up in a modified patch 5, i.e. > > for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) > - val += *(((__u32 *)&per_cpu(xfsstats, cpu) + idx)); > + val += *(((__u32 *)per_cpu_ptr(stats, cpu) + idx)); > return val; _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
