[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080523142904.GB28257@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 17:29:04 +0300
From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: initialization of static per-cpu variables
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 06:20:06PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Thursday 22 May 2008 04:28:02 Vegard Nossum wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I encountered this comment in kernel/softirq.c:
> >
> > /* Some compilers disobey section attribute on statics when not
> > initialized -- RR */
> > static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct tasklet_head, tasklet_vec) = { NULL };
> > static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct tasklet_head, tasklet_hi_vec) = { NULL };
> >
> > So I assume it's the combination of static and whatever section
> > DFINE_PER_CPU puts the variable in which is the problem.
> >
> > However, there's a LOT of these "static DEFINE_PER_CPU" without any
> > initializer in the rest of the code, e.g.:
>
> Yep, it was an old toolchain used by Sparc: DaveM found this one. As you say,
> it's ancient: I'm happy to queue a cleanup patch now everyone is on a modern
> compiler.
The commit says:
[PATCH] softirq.c per_cpu fix
GCC3.1 apparently gets confused about uninitialized sections
We do still support gcc 3.2 (which is the same as 3.1 except for a C++
ABI change) as a compiler for the kernel.
> Thanks,
> Rusty.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
--
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