linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 6/7] arm_pmu: Introduce pmu_irq

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <159242539231.62212.11549121838391298623@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Jun 2020 13:23:12 -0700
From:   Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
To:     Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     mark.rutland@....com, Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@....com>,
        maz@...nel.org, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/7] arm_pmu: Introduce pmu_irq_ops

Quoting Alexandru Elisei (2020-06-17 04:38:50)
> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c
> index df352b334ea7..17e5952d21e4 100644
> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c
> @@ -26,8 +26,46 @@
>  
>  #include <asm/irq_regs.h>
>  
> +static int armpmu_count_irq_users(const int irq);
> +
> +struct pmu_irq_ops {
> +       void (*enable_pmuirq)(unsigned int irq);
> +       void (*disable_pmuirq)(unsigned int irq);
> +       void (*free_pmuirq)(unsigned int irq, int cpu, void __percpu *devid);

Does 'cpu' need to be signed?

> +};
> +
> +static void armpmu_free_pmuirq(unsigned int irq, int cpu, void __percpu *devid)
> +{
> +       free_irq(irq, per_cpu_ptr(devid, cpu));
> +}
> +
> +static const struct pmu_irq_ops pmuirq_ops = {
> +       .enable_pmuirq = enable_irq,
> +       .disable_pmuirq = disable_irq_nosync,
> +       .free_pmuirq = armpmu_free_pmuirq
> +};
> +
> +static void armpmu_enable_percpu_pmuirq(unsigned int irq)
> +{
> +       enable_percpu_irq(irq, IRQ_TYPE_NONE);
> +}
> +
> +static void armpmu_free_percpu_pmuirq(unsigned int irq, int cpu,
> +                                  void __percpu *devid)
> +{
> +       if (armpmu_count_irq_users(irq) == 1)
> +               free_percpu_irq(irq, devid);
> +}
> +
> +static const struct pmu_irq_ops percpu_pmuirq_ops = {
> +       .enable_pmuirq = armpmu_enable_percpu_pmuirq,
> +       .disable_pmuirq = disable_percpu_irq,
> +       .free_pmuirq = armpmu_free_percpu_pmuirq
> +};
> +
>  static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct arm_pmu *, cpu_armpmu);
>  static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, cpu_irq);

Same question as above.

> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(const struct pmu_irq_ops *, cpu_irq_ops);
>  
>  static inline u64 arm_pmu_event_max_period(struct perf_event *event)
>  {