lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Sep]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 2/3] drivers/perf: add DesignWare PCIe PMU driver
On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 10:46:09PM +0800, Shuai Xue wrote:
> 在 2022/9/23 AM1:36, Bjorn Helgaas 写道:
> > On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 08:10:35PM +0800, Shuai Xue wrote:

> >> +static struct device_attribute dwc_pcie_pmu_cpumask_attr =
> >> +__ATTR(cpumask, 0444, dwc_pcie_pmu_cpumask_show, NULL);
> >
> > DEVICE_ATTR_RO()?

> DEVICE_ATTR_RO may a good choice. But does it fit the code style to use
> DEVICE_ATTR_RO in drivers/perf? As far as know, CCN, CCI, SMMU,
> qcom_l2_pmu use "struct device_attribute" directly.

DEVICE_ATTR_RO is just newer, and I think CCN, CCI, SMMU, etc. would
be using it if they were written today. Of course, the drivers/perf
maintainers may have a different opinion :)

> > I think every caller of dwc_pcie_pmu_read_dword() makes the same check
> > and prints the same message; maybe the message should be moved inside
> > dwc_pcie_pmu_read_dword()?
> >
> > Same with dwc_pcie_pmu_write_dword(); moving the message there would
> > simplify all callers.
>
> I would like to wrap dwc_pcie_pmu_{write}_dword out, use
> pci_{read}_config_dword and drop the snaity check of return value as
> Jonathan suggests. How did you like it?

Sounds good. Not sure the error checking is worthwhile since
pci_read_config_dword() really doesn't return meaningful errors
anyway.

> >> +static struct dwc_pcie_info_table *pmu_to_pcie_info(struct pmu *pmu)
> >> +{
> >> + struct dwc_pcie_info_table *pcie_info;
> >> + struct dwc_pcie_pmu *pcie_pmu = to_pcie_pmu(pmu);
> >> +
> >> + pcie_info = container_of(pcie_pmu, struct dwc_pcie_info_table, pcie_pmu);
> >> + if (pcie_info == NULL)
> >> + pci_err(pcie_info->pdev, "Can't get pcie info\n");
> >
> > It shouldn't be possible to get here for a pmu with no pcie_info, and
> > callers don't check for a NULL pointer return value before
> > dereferencing it, so I guess all this adds is an error message before
> > a NULL pointer oops? Not sure the code clutter is worth it.
>
> Do you mean to drop the snaity check of container_of?

Yes. I'm suggesting that the NULL pointer oops itself has enough
information to debug this problem, even without the pci_err().

Bjorn

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-09-23 20:52    [W:0.034 / U:0.428 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site