[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150409144029.GE9648@leverpostej>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 15:40:29 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: CCI: fix used_mask init in validate_group()
> > > > > validate_group(struct perf_event *event)
> > > > > {
> > > > > struct perf_event *sibling, *leader = event->group_leader;
> > > > > - struct cci_pmu_hw_events fake_pmu = {
> > > > > - /*
> > > > > - * Initialise the fake PMU. We only need to populate the
> > > > > - * used_mask for the purposes of validation.
> > > > > - */
> > > > > - .used_mask = CPU_BITS_NONE,
> > > >
> > > > Can we not simply change this to:
> > > >
> > > > .used_mask = { 0 },
> > > >
> > > > That should result in the entire array being zeroed.
> > >
> > > It does, but it also causes the whole struct to be cleared.
> >
> > Sure, but it's also the minimal diff, and it's easier to read. This was
> > what the code was intended to be initially.
> >
> > > With the memset, only used_mask gets cleared.
> >
> > Is there an appreciable difference between the two performance-wise?
>
> I dunno. It is 3 strp insns vs 1 str.
> If you want the static init, I'll send another patch.
I'd prefer the designated initializer to the memset.
Thanks,
Mark.
--
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