[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100324160727.GA4121@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:07:27 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Ben Blum <bblum@...gle.com>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Miao Xie <miaox@...fujitsu.com>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] move_task_off_dead_cpu: take rq->lock around
select_fallback_rq()
On 03/24, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 10:10 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > static void move_task_off_dead_cpu(int dead_cpu, struct task_struct *p)
> > {
> > + struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(dead_cpu);
> > + int needs_cpu, dest_cpu;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > again:
> > + local_irq_save(flags);
> > +
> > + raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> > + needs_cpu = (task_cpu(p) == dead_cpu) && (p->state != TASK_WAKING);
>
> ^
> kernel/sched.c:5445: warning: ‘dest_cpu’ may be used uninitialized in this function
Hmm. looks like my gcc is more friendly...
OK. certainly I'll send the updated patch, if this series passes
your review otherwise.
Oleg.
--
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