On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Andi Kleen <a...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
>> @@ -1367,8 +1367,10 @@ x86_get_event_constraints(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc,
>> struct perf_event *event)
>>
>> if (x86_pmu.event_constraints) {
>> for_each_event_constraint(c, x86_pmu.event_constraints) {
>> - if ((event->hw.config & c->cmask) == c->code)
>> + if ((event->hw.config & c->cmask) == c->code) {
>> + event->hw.flags |= c->flags;
>> return c;
>> + }
>
> It's not fully clear where that hw.flags field gets initially zeroed. Is that
> implicit
> in the allocation? Some comments would be good about its live cycle.
>
Yes, this is by allocation.
I used |= in case we need to add more flags in the future.
I will add a comment.
> Or just use a = instead of |=? Why would you have multiple flags in different
> places?
>
> -Andi
--
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/
