linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel/time/tick-sched.c: fix warning of printk's argument format

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 9 Oct 2009 12:28:14 +0200
From:	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Wu Zhangjin <wuzhangjin@...il.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Remis Lima Baima <remis.developer@...glemail.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/time/tick-sched.c: fix warning of printk's
	argument format

On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 08:03:40AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> > This patch will fix the following warning:
> 
> No it won't. It will add a lot of new warnings.
> 
> The thing is, almost all architectures (including x86) have
> 
> 	unsigned int __softirq_pending;
> 
> but then in <asm-generic/hardirq.h> we have
> 
> 	unsigned long __softirq_pending;
> 
> for some unfathomable reason. Quite frankly, I think Arnd just screwed up 
> the "generic" version, and the fix is almost certainly to just make the 
> generic version match all the main architectures. 
> 
> I don't have any architectures using the generic header file, though, so 
> I'm not going to do that change blindly. People who do should look at it 
> (alpha, powerpc and mips look like the only ones that might be 64-bit, but 
> I didn't check very carefully - just grepped for it)
> 
> Added Cc's for some people that have worked on, or used, that generic 
> header file. Is there any possible reason why it is "unsigned long" in 
> that one?

I think for no other reason than many other bitfields in kernel being
unsigned long or arrays of unsigned long.  Except of course that
__softirq_pending is never being used with the <asm/bitops.h> operations
that operate on unsigned longs.

Patch in followup email.

  Ralf
--
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/