lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] thermal/intel_powerclamp: fix __percpu declaration of worker_data
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@gmail.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@suse.com>

Best Regards,
Petr

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-30 11:01    [W:0.042 / U:9.868 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site