linux-kernel - Re: BUG: tracer_alloc_buffers returned with preemption imbalance

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]

Date:	Mon, 25 Jun 2012 02:10:23 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc:	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: BUG: tracer_alloc_buffers returned with preemption imbalance

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> But in my case, the trailing preempt_enable() should not have been
> optimized away, right?  Wouldn't it be more like the following?
> 
> int a = 0;
> int main(void)
> {
> 	a++;
> 	return ++a;
> 	a++;
> }
> 
> Hmmm...  But this -still- doesn't emit any warnings.
> 

gcc removed -Wunreachable-code a couple years ago.  It doesn't complain 
when you pass it for backwards compatibility with old Makefiles.
--
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/