[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48B71093.3070409@cs.helsinki.fi>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:54:43 +0300
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
CC: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] bitfields API
Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> Heh, heh, one alternative is to have a kmemcheck_memset() thingy that
>> unconditionally zeroes bit fields and maybe is a no-op when kmemcheck is
>> disabled.
>
> This sounds as if this might cause bugs to disappear when debugging gets
> turned on?
Yeah, I suppose. The problem doing that unconditionally is that it
increases kernel text slightly on some architectures (e.g. sparc).
However, as long as you use the KMEMCHECK_BIT_FIELD annotation only in
places that give you false positives, it's we should be safe.
Pekka
--
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