Carl Love wrote:
> +void oprofile_add_value(unsigned long value, int cpu) {
> + struct oprofile_cpu_buffer * cpu_buf = &cpu_buffer[cpu];
Shouldn't it be
struct oprofile_cpu_buffer *cpu_buf = &per_cpu(cpu_buffer, cpu);
No, I don't think so. Take a look at the other functions in
drivers/oprofile/cpu_buffer.c. For example oprofile_add_trace(). You
will see that the cpu_buffer is not accessed using the per_cpu
construct. Not sure why the compiler would complain about the
oprofile_add_value() function but not one of the other functions like
oprofile_add_trace().
Well, actually the other functions like oprofile_add_trace are using the
&__get_cpu_var(cpu_buffer) construct.
What was the compiler error that you saw?
Here they are:
/home/jroth/kernel/spufs/arch/powerpc/oprofile/../../../drivers/oprofile/cpu_buffer.c:
In function ‘oprofile_add_value’:
/home/jroth/kernel/spufs/arch/powerpc/oprofile/../../../drivers/oprofile/cpu_buffer.c:234:
error: ‘cpu_buffer’ undeclared (first use in this function)
cpu_buffer is defined by the DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED macro:
DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct oprofile_cpu_buffer, cpu_buffer);
I will try getting Jeremy's kernel and applying the patch there to see
if it works.
You'll find his tree at
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jk/spufs.git
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
