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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4ACFADED.2040209@gmx.de>
Date:	Fri, 09 Oct 2009 23:41:01 +0200
From:	Helge Deller <deller@....de>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Wu Zhangjin <wuzhangjin@...il.com>,
	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>,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
	Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
	linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, Kyle McMartin <kyle@...artin.ca>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...isc-linux.org>,
	linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/time/tick-sched.c: fix warning of printk's argument
 format

On 10/09/2009 03:42 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 08 October 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> 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?
>
> It was intentional to make it unsigned long in the asm-generic
> version, based on the observation that some of the 64-bit architectures
> (alpha and parisc) were using unsigned long in their arch specific
> files. The original parisc file contained
>
> typedef struct {
>         unsigned long __softirq_pending; /* set_bit is used on this */
> } ____cacheline_aligned irq_cpustat_t;
>
> which would imply that unsigned int wouldn't work for it, and looked
> like a good idea. It turns out that the comment is outdated, set_bit
> hasn't been used on __softirq_pending on any architecture for a long
> time as far as I can tell, and 32 bits is obviously enough for it.

Yes, I just tested it on the parisc architecture.
It seems we don't even touch this variable in our code.

> The patch that Ralf just sent looks good therefore, but I'd suggest
> either reverting two of Christophs patches that changed parisc and alpha
> just to be on the safe side, or getting explicit Acks for Ralfs patch
> from the maintainers of those two architectures.

Don't revert for parisc, as either "unsigned long" or "unsigned int" is OK.
So, Ralf's patch (switching __softirq_pending back to "unsigned int") get's my Ack:
Acked-by: Helge Deller <deller@....de>

Helge
--
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/