[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1548855476.2161.2.camel@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 21:37:56 +0800
From: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>
Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] thermal/intel_powerclamp: fix __percpu declaration of
worker_data
On 三, 2019-01-30 at 10:59 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Sat 2019-01-19 17:15:23, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> >
> > This variable is declared as:
> > static struct powerclamp_worker_data * __percpu worker_data;
> > In other words, a percpu pointer to struct ...
> >
> > But this variable not used like so but as a pointer to a percpu
> > struct powerclamp_worker_data.
> >
> > So fix the declaration as:
> > static struct powerclamp_worker_data __percpu *worker_data;
> >
> > This also quiets Sparse's warnings from __verify_pcpu_ptr(), like:
> > 494:49: warning: incorrect type in initializer (different address
> > spaces)
> > 494:49: expected void const [noderef] <asn:3> *__vpp_verify
> > 494:49: got struct powerclamp_worker_data *
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c
> > b/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c
> > index 7571f7c2e..c7cba20bd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_powerclamp.c
> > @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ struct powerclamp_worker_data {
> > bool clamping;
> > };
> >
> > -static struct powerclamp_worker_data * __percpu worker_data;
> > +static struct powerclamp_worker_data __percpu * worker_data;
> Makes perfect sense. I wonder why I wrote it in the wrong order.
>
> Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
>
applied and queued for next -rc.
thanks,
rui
> Best Regards,
> Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists