[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1206250208210.24381@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists