[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1525371913-10597-3-git-send-email-kan.liang@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 11:25:08 -0700
From: kan.liang@...el.com
To: peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: acme@...nel.org, eranian@...gle.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>
Subject: [RESEND PATCH V7 3/8] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Correct fixed counter index check in generic code
From: Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>
There is no index which is bigger than UNCORE_PMC_IDX_FIXED. The only
exception is client IMC uncore, which has been specially handled.
For generic code, it is not correct to use >= to check fixed counter.
The code quality issue will bring problem when a new counter index is
introduced.
Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>
---
No changes since V6
arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c
index a7956fc..3b0f93e 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c
+++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c
@@ -218,7 +218,7 @@ void uncore_perf_event_update(struct intel_uncore_box *box, struct perf_event *e
u64 prev_count, new_count, delta;
int shift;
- if (event->hw.idx >= UNCORE_PMC_IDX_FIXED)
+ if (event->hw.idx == UNCORE_PMC_IDX_FIXED)
shift = 64 - uncore_fixed_ctr_bits(box);
else
shift = 64 - uncore_perf_ctr_bits(box);
--
2.7.4
Powered by blists - more mailing lists