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 S1754087AbcKROpU (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 18 Nov 2016 09:45:20 -0500
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:46188 "EHLO
        merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753532AbcKROpP (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 18 Nov 2016 09:45:15 -0500
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 15:45:09 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@intel.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
        Vince Weaver <vince@deater.net>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/uncore: Allow single pmu/box within events group
Message-ID: <20161118144509.GB3102@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20161118001528.GA28231@krava>
 <20161118112850.GO3117@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20161118123325.GA15416@krava>
 <20161118125354.GQ3117@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20161118134859.GB15416@krava>
 <20161118140605.GR3117@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20161118143048.GC15416@krava>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161118143048.GC15416@krava>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 03:30:48PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > > +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?
> 
> hum right.. but for some reason I can't crash it nor even fuzzer complains

Its because pmu is the first member, so the pointer is the exact same,
just the type changes. But that is a 'happy' accident of implementation.