[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20081227150534.F472.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:07:06 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
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: [PATCH] perf_counter: more barrier in blank weak function
>
> Impact: fix panic possible panic etc
>
> some compiler seems to inline the weak global function if no line in it
>
> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
>
> diff --git a/kernel/perf_counter.c b/kernel/perf_counter.c
> index d7a79f3..37f7716 100644
> --- a/kernel/perf_counter.c
> +++ b/kernel/perf_counter.c
> @@ -45,8 +45,8 @@ hw_perf_counter_init(struct perf_counter *counter)
> }
>
> u64 __weak hw_perf_save_disable(void) { return 0; }
> -void __weak hw_perf_restore(u64 ctrl) { }
> -void __weak hw_perf_counter_setup(void) { }
> +void __weak hw_perf_restore(u64 ctrl) { barrier(); }
> +void __weak hw_perf_counter_setup(void) { barrier(); }
We need comment into the function.
I expect anyone think "hm, this barrier() is meaningless. let's cleanup." in the future.
we should avoid it.
--
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