From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932547AbaICQKF (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2014 12:10:05 -0400 Received: from mailout4.samsung.com ([203.254.224.34]:52908 "EHLO mailout4.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753297AbaICQKD (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2014 12:10:03 -0400 X-AuditID: cbfee61a-f79e46d00000134f-91-54073d59a91b From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Mark Brown , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nicolas.pitre@linaro.org, Russell King , Tejun Heo , Kyungmin Park Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 1 Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 18:09:56 +0200 Message-id: <37101991.sqIYnPZ4ga@amdc1032> User-Agent: KMail/4.8.4 (Linux/3.2.0-54-generic-pae; KDE/4.8.5; i686; ; ) In-reply-to: References: <20140901230728.GM29327@sirena.org.uk> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7Bit Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrBLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsVy+t9jQd1IW/YQg+t7dS2mPnzCZnH92xtG i7NNb9gtLu+aw2ZxcGEbo8WnZ//YLTZ/eMlm8Wv5UUYHDo+W5h42j02rOtk87lzbw+bx5Mp0 Jo++LasYPT5vkgtgi+KySUnNySxLLdK3S+DK6DrQwFxwjKfiUfMx5gbGpVxdjJwcEgImEj0/ z7BA2GISF+6tZ+ti5OIQEpjOKDFl6mUmCKeFSWLnrwtsIFVsAlYSE9tXMYLYIgIqEmuPvWAH KWIWeM8o0X70KhNIQlhAXeLwzDXsIDaLgKrEuuatYCt4BbQk/v28DhYXFfCU2LF9JdhQTgEb ieVH37FCbJvGKLFiSxdUg6DEj8n3wGxmAXmJffunskLYWhKbtzWxTmAUmIWkbBaSsllIyhYw Mq9iFE0tSC4oTkrPNdQrTswtLs1L10vOz93ECA7/Z1I7GFc2WBxiFOBgVOLhXRDAFiLEmlhW XJl7iFGCg1lJhHeNNHuIEG9KYmVValF+fFFpTmrxIUZpDhYlcd4DrdaBQgLpiSWp2ampBalF MFkmDk6pBsZWkX+NH3/9cny3UMGm/srjr1PtwtqypnVcnu9pJpokuiZj9eI/r3vSGoXEp/zm vuDGF6DEdCv59sXsNfvLN+8JkUkSmV45O75owqXcwmldj4KmKRmmT6/9orCWS3KncsG0FxeD bGYeCDNc2hx+kkfies7PT2FH2OZofPWqPnWq7XiVeuFPk14lluKMREMt5qLiRADk8evnewIA AA== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Tuesday, September 02, 2014 10:00:07 AM Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > Oww.. This is double indirection deal there. A percpu offset pointing to > > a pointer? > > > > Generally the following is true (definition from > > include/asm-generic/percpu.h that is used for ARM for raw_cpu_read): > > > > #define raw_cpu_read_4(pcp) (*raw_cpu_ptr(&(pcp))) > > I think what the issue is that we dropped the fetch of the percpu offset > in the patch. Instead we are using the address of the variable that > contains the offset. Does this patch fix it? Yes, it fixes the problem. Thank you. Tested-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Best regards, -- Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Samsung R&D Institute Poland Samsung Electronics > Subject: irqchip: Properly fetch the per cpu offset > > The raw_cpu_read() conversion dropped the fetch of the offset > from base->percpu_base in gic_get_percpu_base. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter > > Index: linux/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c > =================================================================== > --- linux.orig/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c > +++ linux/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c > @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ static struct gic_chip_data gic_data[MAX > #ifdef CONFIG_GIC_NON_BANKED > static void __iomem *gic_get_percpu_base(union gic_base *base) > { > - return raw_cpu_read(base->percpu_base); > + return raw_cpu_read(*base->percpu_base); > } > > static void __iomem *gic_get_common_base(union gic_base *base)