On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 02:48:59PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 01:53:54PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c | 8 ++++----
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c
> > index efca2685d876..7b1b34576886 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c
> > @@ -319,9 +319,9 @@ static struct intel_uncore_box *uncore_alloc_box(struct
> > intel_uncore_type *type,
> > */
> > static int uncore_pmu_event_init(struct perf_event *event);
> >
> > -static bool is_uncore_event(struct perf_event *event)
> > +static bool is_box_event(struct intel_uncore_box *box, struct perf_event
> > *event)
> > {
> > - return event->pmu->event_init == uncore_pmu_event_init;
> > + return box->pmu == event->pmu;
>
> this one needs to be:
>
> + return box->pmu == uncore_event_to_pmu(event);
>
> and it works.. ;-)
Will that not explode if we fudge a software event in there?
Wouldn't:
return box->pmu.pmu == event->pmu;
be the safer option?
