Re: [RFC PATCH v5 15/38] perf: arm_spe_pmu: Move struct arm_spe_pmu to a separate header file

From: Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>
To: Calvin Owens <quic_calvinow@quicinc.com>
Cc: maz@kernel.org, james.morse@arm.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, will@kernel.org,
	mark.rutland@arm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 15/38] perf: arm_spe_pmu: Move struct arm_spe_pmu to a separate header file
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2022 11:51:17 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YsVpJTRWTIzE/WKP@monolith.localdoman> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YsRtcvxyufSCoIE5@debian-BULLSEYE-live-builder-AMD64>

Hi Calvin,

Thank you for the interest! FYI, I'm working on the next iteration of the
series where I'm planning to remove the dependency on CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING
being unset.

On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 09:57:22AM -0700, Calvin Owens wrote:
> Hi Alexandru,
> 
> I've been taking a look at this series, it needs a little tweak to
> build successfully as a module which I've appended below.
> 
> Cheers,
> Calvin
> 
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 03:38:19PM +0000, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> > KVM will soon want to make use of struct arm_spe_pmu, move it to a separate
> > header where it will be easily accessible. This is a straightforward move
> > and functionality should not be impacted.
> >
> > CC: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>
> > ---
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > +++ b/include/linux/perf/arm_spe_pmu.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
> > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
> > +/*
> > + * Split from from drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c.
> > + *
> > + *  Copyright (C) 2021 ARM Limited
> > + */
> > +
> > +#ifndef __ARM_SPE_PMU_H__
> > +#define __ARM_SPE_PMU_H__
> > +
> > +#include <linux/cpumask.h>
> > +#include <linux/perf_event.h>
> > +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > +#include <linux/types.h>
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_SPE_PMU
> 
> Here, we need to use the IS_ENABLED() macro for the ARM_SPE_PMU=m case.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Calvin Owens <calvinow@qti.qualcomm.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/perf/arm_spe_pmu.h | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/perf/arm_spe_pmu.h b/include/linux/perf/arm_spe_pmu.h
> index 505a8867daad..b643e5e7a766 100644
> --- a/include/linux/perf/arm_spe_pmu.h
> +++ b/include/linux/perf/arm_spe_pmu.h
> @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
>  #include <linux/platform_device.h>
>  #include <linux/types.h>
>  
> -#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_SPE_PMU
> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM_SPE_PMU)
>  
>  struct arm_spe_pmu {
>  	struct pmu				pmu;
> @@ -50,6 +50,6 @@ void kvm_host_spe_init(struct arm_spe_pmu *spe_pmu);
>  #define kvm_host_spe_init(x)	do { } while(0)
>  #endif
>  
> -#endif /* CONFIG_ARM_SPE_PMU */
> +#endif /* IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM_SPE_PMU) */
>  
>  #endif /* __ARM_SPE_PMU_H__ */
> -- 
> 2.30.2

This indeed fixes the nasty screenfulls of errors that I get when trying to
compile with CONFIG_ARM_SPE_PMU=m.

If that's alright with you, I'll fold the fix into the patch and I'll CC
you.

Thanks,
Alex

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel