From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760993Ab3ICWSP (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Sep 2013 18:18:15 -0400 Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.152]:39816 "EHLO e34.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760021Ab3ICWSN (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Sep 2013 18:18:13 -0400 Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 15:18:08 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Steven Rostedt Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Peter Zijlstra , Frederic Weisbecker , Jiri Olsa Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 01/18 v2] ftrace: Add hash list to save RCU unsafe functions Message-ID: <20130903221808.GH3871@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20130831051117.884125230@goodmis.org> <20130831051700.601365837@goodmis.org> <20130903171516.16290c47@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130903171516.16290c47@gandalf.local.home> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-MML: No X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13090322-1542-0000-0000-0000011BA959 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 05:15:16PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 01:11:18 -0400 > Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c > > index a6d098c..3750360 100644 > > --- a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c > > +++ b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c > > @@ -1356,6 +1356,23 @@ ftrace_hash_rec_disable(struct ftrace_ops *ops, int filter_hash); > > static void > > ftrace_hash_rec_enable(struct ftrace_ops *ops, int filter_hash); > > > > +static int ftrace_convert_size_to_bits(int size) > > +{ > > + int bits; > > + > > + /* > > + * Make the hash size about 1/2 the # found > > + */ > > + for (size /= 2; size; size >>= 1) > > + bits++; > > + > > + /* Don't allocate too much */ > > + if (bits > FTRACE_HASH_MAX_BITS) > > + bits = FTRACE_HASH_MAX_BITS; > > + > > + return bits; > > +} > > + > > Just found this bug. Strange that gcc never gave me a warning :-/ I can't give gcc too much trouble, as I also didn't give you an uninitialized-variable warning. Thanx, Paul