[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120420153351.53085ed9.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 15:33:51 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...e.hu,
hpa@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/3] sched: add type checks to for_each_cpu_mask()
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 18:14:44 -0400
Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com> wrote:
> Add type checks to assert that 'mask' is 'struct cpumask *'. This check
> would have detected the bug fixed in e3831ed ("sched: Fix incorrect usage
> of for_each_cpu_mask() in select_fallback_rq()"):
>
> kernel/sched/core.c: In function 'select_fallback_rq':
> kernel/sched/core.c:1273:2: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast
> kernel/sched/core.c:1284:3: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast
>
> ...
>
> @@ -809,6 +810,7 @@ int __next_cpu(int n, const cpumask_t *srcp);
> #define next_cpu(n, src) __next_cpu((n), &(src))
> #define any_online_cpu(mask) cpumask_any_and(&mask, cpu_online_mask)
> #define for_each_cpu_mask(cpu, mask) \
> + typecheck(struct cpumask *, (mask)); \
> for ((cpu) = -1; \
> (cpu) = next_cpu((cpu), (mask)), \
> (cpu) < NR_CPUS; )
and int __next_cpu(int n, const cpumask_t *srcp);
I'm mystified. Why didn't the next_cpu() call generate a warning when
passed the wrong type?
--
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