From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com (Suzuki K. Poulose)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 13:50:18 +0100
Subject: [PATCH V2] drivers: CCI: fix used_mask init in validate_group()
In-Reply-To: <20150415115833.GB18864@arm.com>
References: <20150409144029.GE9648@leverpostej>
 <1428591425-17330-1-git-send-email-msalter@redhat.com>
 <552E40F6.1010504@arm.com> <20150415115833.GB18864@arm.com>
Message-ID: <552E5E8A.6070902@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 15/04/15 12:58, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:44:06AM +0100, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
>> On 09/04/15 15:57, Mark Salter wrote:
>>> Currently in validate_group(), there is a static initializer
>>> for fake_pmu.used_mask which is based on CPU_BITS_NONE but
>>> the used_mask array size is based on CCI_PMU_MAX_HW_EVENTS.
>>> CCI_PMU_MAX_HW_EVENTS is not based on NR_CPUS, so CPU_BITS_NONE
>>> is not correct and will cause a build failure if NR_CPUS
>>> is set high enough to make CPU_BITS_NONE larger than used_mask.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mark Salter <msalter@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/bus/arm-cci.c | 2 +-
>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/bus/arm-cci.c b/drivers/bus/arm-cci.c
>>> index 84fd660..759e41c 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/bus/arm-cci.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/bus/arm-cci.c
>>> @@ -684,7 +684,7 @@ validate_group(struct perf_event *event)
>>>    		 * Initialise the fake PMU. We only need to populate the
>>>    		 * used_mask for the purposes of validation.
>>>    		 */
>>> -		.used_mask = CPU_BITS_NONE,
>>> +		.used_mask = { 0 },
>>>    	};
>>>
>>>    	if (!validate_event(&fake_pmu, leader))
>>>
>> I have a series of patches to add CCI-500 PMU, targeting 4.2, which
>> changes the used_mask to a pointer and changes it to depend on the
>> number of counters available on the CCI PMU.  I will post it in very
>> soon here, which could make this patch obsolete. Let me know if you
>> don't mind getting this sorted out through my series. I am fine either way.
>
> I'd rather have the fix in for 4.1 and then have your CCI-500 patches based
> on that.
>
> Will
>
OK, will rebase my patches on top of this one.

Thanks
Suzuki