From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752645AbbIPI5a (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 16 Sep 2015 04:57:30 -0400
Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:50406 "EHLO
	casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751985AbbIPI52 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 16 Sep 2015 04:57:28 -0400
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:52:05 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Taku Izumi <izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, acme@kernel.org,
        hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, jolsa@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] perf, x86: Fix multi-segment problem of
 perf_event_intel_uncore
Message-ID: <20150916085205.GA3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1442420232-15478-1-git-send-email-izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1442420232-15478-1-git-send-email-izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 01:17:12AM +0900, Taku Izumi wrote:

> +struct pci2phy_map {
> +	struct list_head list;
> +	int segment;
> +	int pbus_to_physid[256];
> +};

> +struct pci2phy_map *__find_pci2phy_map(int segment)
> +{
> +	struct pci2phy_map *map, *alloc = NULL;
> +
> +	lockdep_assert_held(&pci2phy_map_lock);
> +
> +lookup:
> +	list_for_each_entry(map, &pci2phy_map_head, list) {
> +		if (map->segment == segment)
> +			goto end;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (!alloc) {
> +		raw_spin_unlock(&pci2phy_map_lock);
> +		alloc = kmalloc(sizeof(struct pci2phy_map), GFP_KERNEL);

Do we want kzalloc() ? we unconditionally initialize the list and
segment thingies, but that array is not initialized here. Or is there a
better/safer value to initialize that array with?

Looking at uncore_pcibus_to_physid(), -1 might be a good value to use.

> +		raw_spin_lock(&pci2phy_map_lock);
> +
> +		if (!alloc)
> +			return NULL;
> +
> +		goto lookup;
> +	}
> +
> +	map = alloc;
> +	alloc = NULL;
> +	map->segment = segment;
> +	list_add_tail(&map->list, &pci2phy_map_head);
> +
> +end:
> +	kfree(alloc);
> +	return map;
> +}

Other than that I think the patch looks OK now.