[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1231571906.5714.30.camel@brick>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 23:18:26 -0800
From: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: alexey.zaytsev@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...e.hu, rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Disable branch profiling macros when sparsed.
On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 22:13 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Alexey Zaytsev <alexey.zaytsev@...il.com>
> Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 08:57:28 +0300
>
> > The macros produce lots of unneeded warnings when
> > recursive if(({ .. if() {..} ..})) {..} and such
> > are substituted. And there is no point in sparsing
> > them anyway. This is useful if someone decides to
> > sparse an allyesconfig kernel.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexey Zaytsev <alexey.zaytsev@...il.com>
>
> If even sparse can't handle these things, it's no surprise
> how many gcc bogus warning problems we've run into because
> of this hairy if() macro.
It's not that sparse can't handle it, the warning is valid,
_____r and ______f are shadowed when these get nested. It
gets even worse when interacting with likely/unlikely tracing
as that chose the same identifiers too. So there the noise
could be drastically reduced changing the different identifiers
for the if () and __branch_check macros, but nesting will always
warn.
I've just been setting this to no in my allyesconfig sparse
runs....just wait until kmemtrace gets to mainline, then it
gets really bad :(
Cheers,
Harvey
--
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