03.07.24 18:14, Jan Beulich:
On 01.07.2024 14:19, Sergiy Kibrik wrote:
--- a/xen/drivers/acpi/pmstat.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/acpi/pmstat.c
@@ -255,7 +255,7 @@ static int get_cpufreq_para(struct xen_sysctl_pm_op *op)
strlcpy(op->u.get_para.scaling_driver, "Unknown", CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN);
if ( !strncmp(op->u.get_para.scaling_driver, XEN_HWP_DRIVER_NAME,
- CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN) )
+ CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN) && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_INTEL) )
Wrapping like this is confusing, not just because of the flawed indentation.
Please can this be
if ( !strncmp(op->u.get_para.scaling_driver, XEN_HWP_DRIVER_NAME,
CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN) &&
IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_INTEL) )
? Perhaps the IS_ENABLED() would also better be first (not just here).
sure, will fix that
--- a/xen/drivers/cpufreq/utility.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/cpufreq/utility.c
@@ -379,7 +379,7 @@ int cpufreq_driver_getavg(unsigned int cpu, unsigned int
flag)
if (!cpu_online(cpu) || !(policy = per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_policy, cpu)))
return 0;
- freq_avg = get_measured_perf(cpu, flag);
+ freq_avg = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_INTEL) ? get_measured_perf(cpu, flag) : 0;
if ( freq_avg > 0 )
return freq_avg;
Why is this? APERF/MPERF aren't Intel-only MSRs.
yes, it seems to be a mistake..
-Sergiy
