[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090209101642.GG20467@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 11:16:42 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpumask: remove dangerous CPU_MASK_ALL_PTR,
&CPU_MASK_ALL.
* Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
> (Thanks to Al Viro for reminding me of this, via Ingo)
>
> CPU_MASK_ALL is the (deprecated) "all bits set" cpumask, defined as so:
>
> #define CPU_MASK_ALL (cpumask_t) { { ... } }
>
> Taking the address of such a temporary is questionable at best,
> unfortunately 321a8e9d (cpumask: add CPU_MASK_ALL_PTR macro) added
> CPU_MASK_ALL_PTR:
>
> #define CPU_MASK_ALL_PTR (&CPU_MASK_ALL)
>
> Which formalizes this practice. One day gcc could bite us over this
> usage (though we seem to have gotten away with it so far).
>
> So replace everywhere which used &CPU_MASK_ALL or CPU_MASK_ALL_PTR
> with the modern "cpu_all_mask" (a real struct cpumask *), and remove
> CPU_MASK_ALL_PTR altogether.
>
> Also remove the confusing and deprecated large-NR_CPUS-only
> "cpu_mask_all".
>
> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
> Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
In general this should be expressed via this tag:
Reported-by: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Thanks,
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