linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH -next] ia64/sn: fix percpu warnings

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 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:	Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:24:22 -0700
From:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	"linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	akpm <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH -next] ia64/sn: fix percpu warnings

> Umm... the correct correct declaration and definition would be
> 
> DECLARE_PER_CPU(short [MAX_COMPACT_NODES], __sn_cnodeide_to_nasid);
>
> and
>
> DEFINE_PER_CPU(short [MAX_COMPACT_NODES], __sn_cnodeide_to_nasid);
>
> So that the first part contains full type.  Doing it the other way
> might cause problems if the __weak trick is turned on.

That's what Randy's patch uses ... but doing it the "right" way gives
me the "has no CRC!" warning.

This seems to be a feature of exported per cpu arrays.  If I hack
up a driver to make use of softirq_work_list, I see a similar
no CRC warning for it.

Is this problem in the ia64 tool chain[1]?  Or do other architectures
have problems with exported per cpu arrays?

-Tony

[1] My default toolchain is uses gcc 4.1.2.  But 4.4.1 has the same
behavior.

--
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/