[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44D0DE13.7090205@in.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 22:47:07 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>
To: Shailabh Nagar <nagar@...son.ibm.com>
Cc: Jay Lan <jlan@....com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>,
Chris Sturtivant <csturtiv@....com>, Tony Ernst <tee@....com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] add basic accounting fields to taskstats
Shailabh Nagar wrote:
> Jay Lan wrote:
>> Balbir Singh wrote:
>>
>>> Jay Lan wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> -#define TASKSTATS_VERSION 1
>>>> +#define TASKSTATS_VERSION 2
>>>> +#define TASK_COMM_LEN 16
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We should find a way to keep this in sync with with the definition
>>> in linux/sched.h (won't we a warning if both this header and
>>> linux/sched.h are included together?)
>>
>>
>> I do not know how to sync it up. This header linux/taskstats.h is
>> meant to be included by userspace programs. If an application
>> happens to include linux/sched.h, which includes linux/time.h,
>> the application will very likely have compilation errors because
>> the "struct timespec" declaration in <linux/time.h> and <time.h>
>> are conflicting.
>>
>> The <linux/acct.h> defines it to
>> #define ACCT_COMM 16
>>
>> I can change our define to TS_COMM_LEN with remakes saying it
>> should be in sync with the TAKS_COMM_LEN defined in linux/sched.h.
>
> This seems like a good enough way to do it. There's no real need for
> the taskstats comm length to remain exactly in sync with the task struct's
> comm length (by way of trying to include sched.h etc.) though avoiding the
> compile error by renaming is desirable as Balbir pointed out.
>
> Moreover, TASK_COMM_LEN in linux/sched.h isn't likely to change much -
> if it increases and csa_acct users also really need the extra info
> provided,
> taskstats can always be changed and version bumped up. If the size
> decreases
> there's no harm done (strncpy should be sufficient protection).
>
> --Shailabh
>
I am not sure if there is a version of BUG_ON() for compile time
asserts. Basically, if we have an infrastructure of the form
/*
* From C/C++ users journal November 2004
*/
#define STATIC_BUG_ON(e) \
switch (0) { \
case 0: \
case (e): \
; \
}
Then the STATIC_BUG_ON() can catch as shown below.
#define TASK_COMM_LEN 16
#define T_COMM_LEN 20
int
main(void)
{
STATIC_BUG_ON(TASK_COMM_LEN == T_COMM_LEN);
}
STATIC_BUG_ON gives the following warning
bug_on_c.c: In function `main':
bug_on_c.c:19: duplicate case value
bug_on_c.c:19: previously used here
but with T_COMM_LEN set to 16
It compiles without any errors, the code generated also
looks like it has no overhead
int
main(void)
{
8048310: 55 push %ebp
8048311: 89 e5 mov %esp,%ebp
8048313: 83 ec 08 sub $0x8,%esp
8048316: 83 e4 f0 and $0xfffffff0,%esp
STATIC_BUG_ON(TASK_COMM_LEN == T_COMM_LEN);
}
8048319: c9 leave
804831a: c3 ret
804831b: 90 nop
Assuming such infrastructure is available, you could then
do
#ifdef __KERNEL__
#include <linux/sched.h>
#define TS_COMM_LEN 16
STATIC_BUG_ON (TS_COMM_LEN == TASK_COMM_LEN);
#endif
Comments?
--
Balbir Singh,
Linux Technology Center,
IBM Software Labs
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists