Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the oprofile tree with the tip tree

From: Matt Fleming <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 07:03:27 +0100

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 01:18:28PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Robert,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the oprofile tree got a conflict in
> arch/arm/oprofile/common.c between commit
> 38a81da2205f94e8a2a834b51a6b99c91fc7c2e8 ("perf events: Clean up pid
> passing") from the tip tree and commit
> 3d90a00763b51e1db344a7430c966be723b67a29 ("oprofile: Abstract the
> perf-events backend") from the oprofile tree.
> 
> The latter moved the code modified by the former, so I used the version
> of this file from the oprofile tree.  I also applied the effect of the
> tip tree patch to the new file drivers/oprofile/oprofile_perf.c:
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/oprofile/oprofile_perf.c b/drivers/oprofile/oprofile_perf.c
> index b17235a..afbc43b 100644
> --- a/drivers/oprofile/oprofile_perf.c
> +++ b/drivers/oprofile/oprofile_perf.c
> @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ static int op_create_counter(int cpu, int event)
>  		return 0;
>  
>  	pevent = perf_event_create_kernel_counter(&counter_config[event].attr,
> -						  cpu, -1,
> +						  cpu, NULL1,
>  						  op_overflow_handler);

Is that a typo? Shouldn't that be NULL, and not NULL1?