On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Jiri Olsa <jo...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 06:34:39PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> From: Maria Dimakopoulou <maria.n.dimakopou...@gmail.com>
>>
>
> SNIP
>
>> +struct intel_excl_cntrs *allocate_excl_cntrs(int cpu)
>> +{
>> + struct intel_excl_cntrs *c;
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + c = kzalloc_node(sizeof(struct intel_excl_cntrs),
>> + GFP_KERNEL, cpu_to_node(cpu));
>> + if (c) {
>> + spin_lock_init(&c->lock);
>> + for (i = 0; i < X86_PMC_IDX_MAX; i++) {
>> + c->states[0].state[i] = INTEL_EXCL_UNUSED;
>> + c->states[0].init_state[i] = INTEL_EXCL_UNUSED;
>> +
>> + c->states[1].state[i] = INTEL_EXCL_UNUSED;
>> + c->states[1].init_state[i] = INTEL_EXCL_UNUSED;
>
> 'c' is allocated with kzalloc_node, seems there's no need
> to re-initialize states it to zero again with INTEL_EXCL_UNUSED
>
You are assuming that INTEL_EXCL_UNUSED=0 always.
That means it needs to be clear there is a dependency here.
I am happy removing that if someone confirms the assumption is common
in the kernel
for this kind of fields.
> jirka
--
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/
