[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130719173505.GJ6123@two.firstfloor.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 19:35:05 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake.hitoshi@...il.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, acme@...radead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
h.mitake@...il.com, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf, tools, bench: Fix memcpy benchmark for large
sizes v2
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/bench/mem-memcpy.c b/tools/perf/bench/mem-memcpy.c
> > index 93c83e3..0887b46 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/bench/mem-memcpy.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/bench/mem-memcpy.c
> > @@ -115,8 +115,10 @@ static void alloc_mem(void **dst, void **src, size_t length)
> > die("memory allocation failed - maybe length is too large?\n");
> >
> > *src = zalloc(length);
> > - if (!src)
> > + if (!*src)
>
> In the latest mem-memcpy.c, this if (!src) is already fixed as if
> (!*src). This modification makes applying fail.
I can undo it, and repost, but the patch would still conflict.
Just whoever applies it has to resolve the trivial conflcit.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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