[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090703073801.GA10191@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:38:01 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: David Kilroy <kilroyd@...glemail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] check spinlock_t/rwlock_t argument type on non-SMP
builds
* David Kilroy <kilroyd@...glemail.com> wrote:
> When writing code for UP without CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK it's easy
> to get the first argument to the spinlock/rwlock functions wrong.
> This is because the parameter is not actually used in this
> configuration.
>
> Typically you will only find out it's wrong
> * by rebuilding with CONFIG_SMP or CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK
> * after you've submitted your beautiful patch series.
>
> The first means a long wait, and the latter is a bit late.
>
> Add typechecking on the first argument of these macro functions.
> Note that since the typecheck now references the variable, the
> explicit read is redundant and can be removed.
>
> This change causes compiler warnings in net/ipv4/route.c, as this
> passes NULL as the first argument in the UP configuration. Simply
> cast this.
Wondering - can the wrappers be moved from CPP land to C land by
turning them into inlines? (i havent checked all usages so there
might be some surprises, but by and large it ought to be possible.)
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