linux-kernel - Re: sched: WARNING: at include/linux/cpumask.h:108 select_fallback

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:40:22 +0200
From:	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, mingo@...nel.org,
	"Liu, Chuansheng" <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>, vapier@...too.org,
	rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: sched: WARNING: at include/linux/cpumask.h:108 select_fallback_rq+0x241/0x280()

On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-03-31 at 13:22 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>
>> One of the perils of using macros instead of true function calls :-(
>>
> You can do type checking in macros too, its not pretty, but there's
> several such things already, see min()/max() for example.

Would it make sense to somehow standardize type checking in kernel
macros? Possibly a set of wrappers that would make type checking easy
to get into new and existing macros?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/