From: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] thermal/intel_powerclamp: fix __percpu declaration of worker_data
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 21:42:18 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1548855738.2161.5.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1548855476.2161.2.camel@intel.com>
On 三, 2019-01-30 at 21:37 +0800, Zhang Rui wrote:
> On 三, 2019-01-30 at 10:59 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> >
> > On Sat 2019-01-19 17:15:23, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > This variable is declared as:
> > > static struct powerclamp_worker_data * __percpu worker_data;
> > > In other words, a percpu pointer to struct ...
> > >
> > > But this variable not used like so but as a pointer to a percpu
> > > struct powerclamp_worker_data.
> > >
> > > So fix the declaration as:
> > > static struct powerclamp_worker_data __percpu *worker_data;
> > >
> > > This also quiets Sparse's warnings from __verify_pcpu_ptr(),
> > > like:
> > > 494:49: warning: incorrect type in initializer (different
> > > address
> > > spaces)
> > > 494:49: expected void const [noderef] <asn:3> *__vpp_verify
> > > 494:49: got struct powerclamp_worker_data *
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c
> > > b/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c
> > > index 7571f7c2e..c7cba20bd 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c
> > > @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ struct powerclamp_worker_data {
> > > bool clamping;
> > > };
> > >
> > > -static struct powerclamp_worker_data * __percpu worker_data;
> > > +static struct powerclamp_worker_data __percpu * worker_data;
> > Makes perfect sense. I wonder why I wrote it in the wrong order.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
> >
> applied and queued for next -rc.
>
well, just with a minor change to get rid of checkpatch warning.
ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
#121: FILE: drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c:104:
+static struct powerclamp_worker_data __percpu * worker_data;
total: 1 errors, 0 warnings, 8 lines checked
thanks,
rui
> thanks,
> rui
>
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Petr
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-30 13:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-19 16:15 [PATCH] thermal/intel_powerclamp: fix __percpu declaration of worker_data Luc Van Oostenryck
2019-01-30 9:59 ` Petr Mladek
2019-01-30 13:37 ` Zhang Rui
2019-01-30 13:42 ` Zhang Rui [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1548855738.2161.5.camel@intel.com \
--to=rui.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).