| Message ID | f0d9ff32-c4e6-674e-0719-833334f39e5d@amd.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | perf test amd: Fix build failure with amd-ibs-via-core-pmu.c -- Was: Re: [PATCH v5 27/34] perf pmu: Separate pmu and pmus | expand |
On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 10:30 PM Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@amd.com> wrote: > > On 27-May-23 12:52 PM, Ian Rogers wrote: > > Separate and hide the pmus list in pmus.[ch]. Move pmus functionality > > out of pmu.[ch] into pmus.[ch] renaming pmus functions which were > > prefixed perf_pmu__ to perf_pmus__. > > I'm seeing perf tool build failures on linux-next because a patch[1] went in > via Peter's tree needed some changes done by this patch. > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/168372562075.404.10852387134590654382.tip-bot2@tip-bot2 > > Below patch fixes the issue. > > From c041b94df00baea024b64d4b19e37ee827484e74 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@amd.com> > Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2023 15:23:22 +0530 > Subject: [PATCH] perf test amd: Fix build failure with amd-ibs-via-core-pmu.c > > Since amd-ibs-via-core-pmu.c was applied via Peter's tree, some of > the changes came via Arnaldo's tree did not reflected in this file, > which is causing build failures. > > arch/x86/tests/amd-ibs-via-core-pmu.c:47:25: error: ‘pmus’ undeclared > (first use in this function) > 47 | if (list_empty(&pmus)) > | ^~~~ > arch/x86/tests/amd-ibs-via-core-pmu.c:48:17: error: implicit declaration > of function ‘perf_pmu__scan’; did you mean > perf_pmus__scan’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > 48 | perf_pmu__scan(NULL); > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > | perf_pmus__scan > arch/x86/tests/amd-ibs-via-core-pmu.c:50:19: error: implicit declaration > of function ‘perf_pmu__find’; did you mean > perf_pmus__find’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > 50 | ibs_pmu = perf_pmu__find("ibs_op"); > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > | perf_pmus__find > > Fix those. > > Fixes: 1eaf496ed386 ("perf pmu: Separate pmu and pmus") > Signed-off-by: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@amd.com> > --- > tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/amd-ibs-via-core-pmu.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/amd-ibs-via-core-pmu.c b/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/amd-ibs-via-core-pmu.c > index 2902798ca5c1..1e08b2455725 100644 > --- a/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/amd-ibs-via-core-pmu.c > +++ b/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/amd-ibs-via-core-pmu.c > @@ -44,10 +44,10 @@ int test__amd_ibs_via_core_pmu(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused, > int ret = TEST_OK; > int fd, i; > > - if (list_empty(&pmus)) > - perf_pmu__scan(NULL); > + /* No way to know whether pmus list is already populated or not. */ > + perf_pmus__scan(NULL); Thanks Ravi, you should be able to just remove the 2 lines above. The code will check to make sure the list is populated for the find below: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux.git/tree/tools/perf/util/pmus.c?h=perf-tools-next#n79 Thanks, Ian > - ibs_pmu = perf_pmu__find("ibs_op"); > + ibs_pmu = perf_pmus__find("ibs_op"); > if (!ibs_pmu) > return TEST_SKIP; > > -- > 2.40.1
diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/amd-ibs-via-core-pmu.c b/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/amd-ibs-via-core-pmu.c index 2902798ca5c1..1e08b2455725 100644 --- a/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/amd-ibs-via-core-pmu.c +++ b/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/amd-ibs-via-core-pmu.c @@ -44,10 +44,10 @@ int test__amd_ibs_via_core_pmu(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused, int ret = TEST_OK; int fd, i; - if (list_empty(&pmus)) - perf_pmu__scan(NULL); + /* No way to know whether pmus list is already populated or not. */ + perf_pmus__scan(NULL); - ibs_pmu = perf_pmu__find("ibs_op"); + ibs_pmu = perf_pmus__find("ibs_op"); if (!ibs_pmu) return TEST_SKIP;