From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 11:17:33 +0000
Subject: [PATCH 5/5] arm/perfevents: implement perf event support for ARMv6
In-Reply-To: <1262602122-10373-6-git-send-email-jamie.iles@picochip.com>
References: <1262602122-10373-1-git-send-email-jamie.iles@picochip.com>
	<1262602122-10373-2-git-send-email-jamie.iles@picochip.com>
	<1262602122-10373-3-git-send-email-jamie.iles@picochip.com>
	<1262602122-10373-4-git-send-email-jamie.iles@picochip.com>
	<1262602122-10373-5-git-send-email-jamie.iles@picochip.com>
	<1262602122-10373-6-git-send-email-jamie.iles@picochip.com>
Message-ID: <20100104111733.GD9107@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 10:48:42AM +0000, Jamie Iles wrote:
> This patch implements support for ARMv6 performance counters in the
> Linux performance events subsystem. ARMv6 architectures that have the
> performance counters should enable HW_PERF_EVENTS and define the
> interrupts for the counters in arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c

Only comment is the number of BUG()s in this code - I count 6 of them.
BUG() is not meant to be used as an "assert" for when expectations are
not met - does it really make sense to crash the kernel when any of
these are hit?  Are you at risk of losing data if one of your conditions
isn't satisfied?

You may want to consider using WARN_ON() instead - at least that doesn't
take out the kernel.