On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 09:34:03AM +0000, Vinayak Kale wrote:
>  static void
> +armpmu_disable_percpu_irq(void *data)
> +{
> +     struct arm_pmu *armpmu = data;
> +     struct platform_device *pmu_device = armpmu->plat_device;
> +     int irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, 0);
> +
> +     cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &armpmu->active_irqs);

Why not just cpumask_clear_cpu?

> +     disable_percpu_irq(irq);
> +}
> +
> +static void
>  armpmu_release_hardware(struct arm_pmu *armpmu)
>  {
> -     int i, irq, irqs;
> +     int irq;
> +     unsigned int i, irqs;
>       struct platform_device *pmu_device = armpmu->plat_device;
>  
>       irqs = min(pmu_device->num_resources, num_possible_cpus());
> +     if (!irqs)
> +             return;
>  
> -     for (i = 0; i < irqs; ++i) {
> -             if (!cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(i, &armpmu->active_irqs))
> -                     continue;
> -             irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, i);
> -             if (irq >= 0)
> -                     free_irq(irq, armpmu);
> +     irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, 0);
> +     if (irq <= 0)
> +             return;
> +
> +     if (irq_is_percpu(irq)) {
> +             on_each_cpu(armpmu_disable_percpu_irq, armpmu, 1);
> +             free_percpu_irq(irq, &cpu_hw_events);
> +     } else {
> +             for (i = 0; i < irqs; ++i) {
> +                     if (!cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(i, 
> &armpmu->active_irqs))
> +                             continue;
> +                     irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, i);
> +                     if (irq > 0)
> +                             free_irq(irq, armpmu);
> +             }
>       }
>  }
>  
> +static void
> +armpmu_enable_percpu_irq(void *data)
> +{
> +     struct arm_pmu *armpmu = data;
> +     struct platform_device *pmu_device = armpmu->plat_device;
> +     int irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, 0);
> +
> +     enable_percpu_irq(irq, IRQ_TYPE_NONE);
> +     cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &armpmu->active_irqs);

Hmm, wouldn't it make more sense to pass the irq in data, then deal with the
mask in the caller? (since the mask will *always* be updated by each CPU).

Similarly for the disable path.

Will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to