[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1340185002.21745.80.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:36:42 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] perf, x86: Move Intel specific code to
intel_pmu_init()
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 20:10 +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> There is some Intel specific code in the generic x86 path. Move it to
> intel_pmu_init().
>
> Signed-off-by: Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
> ---
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
> index 1eb9f00..90d7097 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
> @@ -1760,7 +1760,7 @@ static __init void intel_nehalem_quirk(void)
> }
> }
>
> -__init int intel_pmu_init(void)
> +static __init int __intel_pmu_init(void)
> {
> union cpuid10_edx edx;
> union cpuid10_eax eax;
> @@ -1955,3 +1955,46 @@ __init int intel_pmu_init(void)
>
> return 0;
> }
> +
> +__init int intel_pmu_init(void)
> +{
> + struct event_constraint *c;
> + int ret = __intel_pmu_init();
This seems like a nice enough cleanup all on its own, but why make it
two functions?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists