From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C2B3C433ED for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:40:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6059661220 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:40:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1346835AbhDMQkU (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:40:20 -0400 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com ([185.176.79.56]:2847 "EHLO frasgout.his.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231330AbhDMQkP (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:40:15 -0400 Received: from fraeml745-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.201]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4FKWKm5RPgz689NR; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 00:30:04 +0800 (CST) Received: from lhreml724-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.75) by fraeml745-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.226) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 18:39:54 +0200 Received: from [10.47.4.3] (10.47.4.3) by lhreml724-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.75) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 17:39:53 +0100 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] drivers/perf: hisi: Add driver for HiSilicon PCIe PMU To: "liuqi (BA)" , "will@kernel.org" , "mark.rutland@arm.com" , "bhelgaas@google.com" CC: "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Zhangshaokun References: <1617959157-22956-1-git-send-email-liuqi115@huawei.com> <1617959157-22956-2-git-send-email-liuqi115@huawei.com> <4cae4206-aa50-f111-2f6f-d035bc36856e@huawei.com> <9c577f11-46e7-55a0-95e8-6c3376077049@huawei.com> From: John Garry Message-ID: <60dffcdf-f5a5-b533-2474-ba44580191a9@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 17:37:19 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.47.4.3] X-ClientProxiedBy: lhreml704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.53) To lhreml724-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.75) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 13/04/2021 10:12, liuqi (BA) wrote: >>>> >>>> I do wonder why we even need maintain pcie_pmu->cpumask >>>> >>>> Can't we just use cpu_online_mask as appropiate instead? >> >> ? > Sorry, missed it yesterday. > It seems that cpumask is always same as cpu_online_mask, So do we need > to reserve the cpumask sysfs interface? I'm not saying that we don't require the cpumask sysfs interface. I am just asking why you maintain a separate cpumask, when, as I said, they seem the same. Thanks, John