Re: [PATCH] mce: fix warning messages about static struct mce_device

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:31:38AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 09:38:43AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > * Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/mce.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/mce.h
> > > > > index f35ce43..6aefb14 100644
> > > > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/mce.h
> > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/mce.h
> > > > > @@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ static inline void enable_p5_mce(void) {}
> > > > >  
> > > > >  void mce_setup(struct mce *m);
> > > > >  void mce_log(struct mce *m);
> > > > > -DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct device, mce_device);
> > > > > +extern struct device *mce_device[CONFIG_NR_CPUS];
> > > > 
> > > > Minor nit, i don't think we have any other such [CONFIG_NR_CPUS] 
> > > > pattern in the kernel.
> > > > 
> > > > This should be something like:
> > > > 
> > > >   DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct device *, mce_device);
> > > 
> > > That is what we used to have, but with just a static struct 
> > > device. [...]
> > 
> > Which was fine in itself for a per CPU data structure - 
> > wouldnt the warning be fixed by memset()-ing before 
> > registering the device or such, if device registry 
> > absolutely needs a pre-zeroed buffer?
> 
> It was already fixed that way, but the problem is that you can 
> not have statically allocated 'struct device' objects in the 
> system. [...]

Where does that limitation come from? Typically there's no 
fundamental reason why there should be such restrictions in 
place, but i might be missing something.

Although one could argue that *this* particular bug is evidence 
why static allocations should be disallowed: reuse is way too 
easy to mess up :-)

> > I don't object to the quick fix that gets rid of the 
> > warnings, but that quick fix came at the price of leaving 
> > the real bug unfixed and at the price of introducing a new 
> > ugliness ;-)
> 
> Nope, all of the bugs are now fixed :)

Okay :-)

> > > [...] We really don't need this to be in the per-cpu area, 
> > > a flat array should be just fine, why can't we use the 
> > > CONFIG_NR_CPUS value?  Should we use something else?
> > 
> > By that argument we don't really need PER_CPU() areas to 
> > begin with, a flat [CONFIG_NR_CPUS] array is just fine, 
> > right?
> 
> I never said that, only for this type of variable.

There's nothing unusual about this: a percpu array of pointers 
occurs in dozens of places in the kernel.

> > Would be nice if you could do that or some other equivalent 
> > solution, i'd really not like to see the [CONFIG_NR_CPUS] 
> > pattern to spread in the kernel, we spent a lot of time 
> > getting rid of such uses ;-)
> 
> Ok, I'll work on resolving this.

Thanks!

	Ingo