From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: On spreading atomic_t initialization Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 09:54:58 -0600 Message-ID: <20081028155457.GC12792@parisc-linux.org> References: <20081028152943.GA20989@x200.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:60413 "EHLO mail.parisc-linux.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751981AbYJ1Py7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:54:59 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081028152943.GA20989@x200.localdomain> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Alexey Dobriyan Cc: torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 06:29:43PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > I wrote stupid runtime checker to look for atomic_t uninitialized usage > and the amount of screaming in logs is surprisingly very big. > > So the question: is there really really an arch for which setting atomic_t > by hand (kzalloc) is not equivalent to atomic_set()? No. atomic_t is 32-bit, and requires all 32 bits to be usable by the callers. It's kind of like NULL might not theoretically be represented by a bit-pattern of all zeroes. In practise, it always is. I don't see the value in your checker, sorry. -- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step."