[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABPqkBTMY+q9FUxF0gopSrrG2OJS8NrFkPtKGshjHgZ8Lq8arA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:44:30 +0200
From: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Venkatesh Srinivas <venkateshs@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"Yan, Zheng" <zheng.z.yan@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/intel: Use rdmsrl_safe when initializing RAPL PMU.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 05:18:29PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 05:14:33PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> >> Wouldn't rdmsrl_safe() return 0 on success?
>> >
>> > Yes.
>> >
>> then the if() test is wrong:
>> if (!rdmsrl_safe())
>> return -1;
>>
>> Should be:
>> if (rdmsrl_safe())
>> return -1;
>>
>> Or am I missing something?
>
> Yeah, that is wrong:
>
> if (!rdmsrl_safe(MSR_RAPL_POWER_UNIT, &msr_rapl_power_unit_bits))
> return -1;
>
> On error we return -EIO, on success 0. Just remove the "!".
>
Yeah, will post a patch ASAP. A comment describing return values
where rdmsrl_safe() is defined would maybe help avoid problems in the future.
Thanks.
>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
> Boris.
>
> Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
> --
--
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