linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Fix WARN_ON / WARN_ON

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:59:37 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC:	"Ananiev, Leonid I" <leonid.i.ananiev@...el.com>,
	tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix WARN_ON / WARN_ON_ONCE regression

Steven Rostedt wrote:
> In todays world, SMP is becoming more and more common (still waiting to
> get that DualCore cell phone).  So that means that writing to a variable
> is going to carry more weight than it use to, and gcc needs to take note
> of this.  So, to avoid a short condition jump by adding a write to
> memory, is not going to save anying.
>   

In general shared variables are going to be pretty rare, and its 
reasonable for gcc to assume they aren't.  But it would be nice to have 
a good way to solve cases like this (though it seems like (condition) && 
__warn_once is the right way to go here anyway).

    J
-
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/