From: Dave <kilroyd@googlemail.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: David Kilroy <kilroyd@googlemail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] check spinlock_t/rwlock_t argument type on non-SMP builds
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:02:01 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A4E55A9.7090001@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090703073801.GA10191@elte.hu>
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * David Kilroy <kilroyd@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> When writing code for UP without CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK it's easy
>> to get the first argument to the spinlock/rwlock functions wrong.
>> This is because the parameter is not actually used in this
>> configuration.
>>
>> Typically you will only find out it's wrong
>> * by rebuilding with CONFIG_SMP or CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK
>> * after you've submitted your beautiful patch series.
>>
>> The first means a long wait, and the latter is a bit late.
>>
>> Add typechecking on the first argument of these macro functions.
>> Note that since the typecheck now references the variable, the
>> explicit read is redundant and can be removed.
>>
>> This change causes compiler warnings in net/ipv4/route.c, as this
>> passes NULL as the first argument in the UP configuration. Simply
>> cast this.
>
> Wondering - can the wrappers be moved from CPP land to C land by
> turning them into inlines? (i havent checked all usages so there
> might be some surprises, but by and large it ought to be possible.)
I thought about doing it that way. I decided not to because I suspected
it would be harder to verify that the behaviour is unchanged.
Also the _lock_irqsave functions output to the flags parameter (which
isn't a pointer) so that has to remain a macro.
If you'd really rather an inline version, I can spend some time looking
into it.
Dave.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-07-03 19:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-07-02 18:44 [PATCH] check spinlock_t/rwlock_t argument type on non-SMP builds David Kilroy
2009-07-03 7:38 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-07-03 19:02 ` Dave [this message]
2009-07-18 12:14 ` Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4A4E55A9.7090001@gmail.com \
--to=kilroyd@googlemail.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).