* Re: 2.6.11.3 build problem in arch/alpha/kernel/srcons.c with gcc-4.0
2005-03-21 3:03 ` Andrew Morton
2005-03-21 2:16 ` Dan Kegel
2005-03-21 3:19 ` Richard Henderson
@ 2005-03-21 4:26 ` Richard Henderson
2 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Richard Henderson @ 2005-03-21 4:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: Dan Kegel, jbglaw, linux-kernel, torvalds
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 07:03:52PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Dan Kegel <dank@kegel.com> wrote:
> >
> > Anyone with an alpha care to suggest a fix for this?
> >
> > arch/alpha/kernel/srmcons.c: In function 'srmcons_open':
> > arch/alpha/kernel/srmcons.c:196: warning: 'srmconsp' may be used uninitialized in this function
> > make[1]: *** [arch/alpha/kernel/srmcons.o] Error 1
> > make: *** [arch/alpha/kernel] Error 2
> >
> > I get this when building the 2.6.11.3 kernel with a recent gcc-4.0 snapshot.
> >
>
> It's beyond gcc's ability to figure out that the code is OK. Options would
> be to disable -Werror, or to artificially initialise that variable.
Fixed thus.
Note that even with a _raw_read_trylock implementation, smp still
doesn't work. Everything that init spawns dies immediately. I
havn't had a chance to find out why yet...
r~
You can import this changeset into BK by piping this whole message to:
'| bk receive [path to repository]' or apply the patch as usual.
===================================================================
ChangeSet@1.2289, 2005-03-20 12:29:41-08:00, rth@kanga.twiddle.home
[ALPHA] Elimitate two warnings from gcc4.
smp.c | 43 -------------------------------------------
srmcons.c | 27 ++++++++++-----------------
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 60 deletions(-)
diff -Nru a/arch/alpha/kernel/smp.c b/arch/alpha/kernel/smp.c
--- a/arch/alpha/kernel/smp.c 2005-03-20 20:23:28 -08:00
+++ b/arch/alpha/kernel/smp.c 2005-03-20 20:23:28 -08:00
@@ -175,48 +175,6 @@
cpu_idle();
}
-
-/*
- * Rough estimation for SMP scheduling, this is the number of cycles it
- * takes for a fully memory-limited process to flush the SMP-local cache.
- *
- * We are not told how much cache there is, so we have to guess.
- */
-static void __init
-smp_tune_scheduling (int cpuid)
-{
- struct percpu_struct *cpu;
- unsigned long on_chip_cache; /* kB */
- unsigned long freq; /* Hz */
- unsigned long bandwidth = 350; /* MB/s */
-
- cpu = (struct percpu_struct*)((char*)hwrpb + hwrpb->processor_offset
- + cpuid * hwrpb->processor_size);
- switch (cpu->type)
- {
- case EV45_CPU:
- on_chip_cache = 16 + 16;
- break;
-
- case EV5_CPU:
- case EV56_CPU:
- on_chip_cache = 8 + 8 + 96;
- break;
-
- case PCA56_CPU:
- on_chip_cache = 16 + 8;
- break;
-
- case EV6_CPU:
- case EV67_CPU:
- default:
- on_chip_cache = 64 + 64;
- break;
- }
-
- freq = hwrpb->cycle_freq ? : est_cycle_freq;
-}
-
/* Wait until hwrpb->txrdy is clear for cpu. Return -1 on timeout. */
static int __init
wait_for_txrdy (unsigned long cpumask)
@@ -517,7 +475,6 @@
current_thread_info()->cpu = boot_cpuid;
smp_store_cpu_info(boot_cpuid);
- smp_tune_scheduling(boot_cpuid);
smp_setup_percpu_timer(boot_cpuid);
/* Nothing to do on a UP box, or when told not to. */
diff -Nru a/arch/alpha/kernel/srmcons.c b/arch/alpha/kernel/srmcons.c
--- a/arch/alpha/kernel/srmcons.c 2005-03-20 20:23:28 -08:00
+++ b/arch/alpha/kernel/srmcons.c 2005-03-20 20:23:28 -08:00
@@ -164,29 +164,22 @@
unsigned long flags;
int retval = 0;
- spin_lock_irqsave(&srmconsp_lock, flags);
-
- do {
- if (srmconsp != NULL) {
- *ps = srmconsp;
- break;
- }
+ if (srmconsp == NULL) {
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&srmconsp_lock, flags);
srmconsp = kmalloc(sizeof(*srmconsp), GFP_KERNEL);
- if (srmconsp == NULL) {
+ if (srmconsp == NULL)
retval = -ENOMEM;
- break;
+ else {
+ srmconsp->tty = NULL;
+ spin_lock_init(&srmconsp->lock);
+ init_timer(&srmconsp->timer);
}
- srmconsp->tty = NULL;
- spin_lock_init(&srmconsp->lock);
- init_timer(&srmconsp->timer);
-
- *ps = srmconsp;
- } while(0);
-
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&srmconsp_lock, flags);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&srmconsp_lock, flags);
+ }
+ *ps = srmconsp;
return retval;
}
===================================================================
This BitKeeper patch contains the following changesets:
1.2289
## Wrapped with gzip_uu ##
M'XL( $!,/D( [56[V_;-A#]+/X5!Q38FFV628KZY<!!TJ98BP9;D"&?BL)@
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I\COL*J?5=SG*3;1=2J%3<?]?PY:?+7573PFE(L5)@+X!A'U=W,@(
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread