[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1602221300200.2477@nanos>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 13:00:35 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
Harish Chegondi <harish.chegondi@...el.com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi.kleen@...el.com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 10/28] x86/perf/intel_uncore: Store box in
event->pmu_private
On Mon, 22 Feb 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:06:50AM -0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > + event->pmu_private = box;
>
> > +static inline struct intel_uncore_box *uncore_event_to_box(struct perf_event *event)
> > +{
> > + return event->pmu_private;
> > +}
>
> Do you really need this? That is, what is wrong with:
>
> static inline struct intel_uncore_box *uncore_event_to_box(struct perf_event *event)
> {
> return uncore_pmu_to_box(event->pmu, event->cpu);
> }
>
> Which, after patch 12, should be fairly trivial, right?
Yes.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists