[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161118144509.GB3102@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 15:45:09 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/uncore: Allow single pmu/box within events group
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 03:30:48PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > > +static bool is_box_event(struct intel_uncore_box *box, struct perf_event *event)
> > > > {
> > > > - return event->pmu->event_init == uncore_pmu_event_init;
> > > > + return box->pmu == event->pmu;
> > >
> > > this one needs to be:
> > >
> > > + return box->pmu == uncore_event_to_pmu(event);
> > >
> > > and it works.. ;-)
> >
> > Will that not explode if we fudge a software event in there?
> >
> > Wouldn't:
> >
> > return box->pmu.pmu == event->pmu;
> >
> > be the safer option?
>
> hum right.. but for some reason I can't crash it nor even fuzzer complains
Its because pmu is the first member, so the pointer is the exact same,
just the type changes. But that is a 'happy' accident of implementation.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists