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" <>
To:	Tejun Heo <>
CC:	Randy Dunlap <>,
	Stephen Rothwell <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	LKML <>,
	akpm <>
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?


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

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists