linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rcu: remove SPARSE_RCU

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]

Message-ID: <20110104211938.GT2026@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 4 Jan 2011 13:19:38 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: remove SPARSE_RCU_POINTER

On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 11:36:02AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 January 2011 09:43:01 Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > As I known, __rcu annotations do not effect the result compiled kernel.
> > 
> > They work only when we use spare("make C=1" or "make C=2"),
> > So we don't need another new switch for it since we have one
> > for debugging(use spare or not).
> > 
> > signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
> 
> The intention of this option was to avoid introducing an excessive
> number of false positives when using sparse.
> 
> We should only make that unconditional if we are reasonably convinced
> that all the majority of warnings caused by it should actually
> lead to changes in the code.

I agree with Arnd here -- the changes required are extensive in many
cases, and a number of subsystems are making decent progress.

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/