[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081226133354.GC29265@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 14:33:54 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
mel@....ul.ie
Subject: Re: [BUG] next-20081216 - WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:333
smp_call_function_mask
* Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 02:05:47AM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > Kamalesh Babulal wrote:
> > > * Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> [2008-12-24 12:34:41]:
> > >
> > >> --
> > >
> > > After the applying the patch, the kernel panic's with the same backtrace. The
> > > box is running Fedora 5 on it.
> > >
> >
> > please try...
> > Ingo, do we need to switch to use #idef and inline function instead?
>
> I recall David Howells had a similar issue with the bootparamter patch set.
> The workaround he used was to add a barrier(); call in the weak function
> to avoid the inline.
could we add some extra attribute to __weak that would have a similar
effect? Something like __attribute__((noinline)), or something silly like
__attribute__((deprecated)) - just to keep gcc from screwing up __weak
functions? Perhaps adding a section attribute would have a similar effect?
(putting weak definitions into an extra section is probably helpful
anyway)
Ingo
--
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