[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <524198FD.2090104@sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 06:51:57 -0700
From: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>,
Hedi Berriche <hedi@....com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] x86/UV/KDB/NMI: Updates for NMI/KDB handler for SGI
UV
On 9/24/2013 12:52 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> Hm, do you test-build your patches?
Both build and test incessantly...
This series produces the following
> annoying warning:
>
> arch/x86/platform/uv/uv_nmi.c: In function ‘uv_nmi_setup’:
> arch/x86/platform/uv/uv_nmi.c:664:2: warning: the address of ‘uv_nmi_cpu_mask’ will always evaluate as ‘true’ [-Waddress]
I didn't hit the above warning since I never tried building without
CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK defined. I wonder if uv_nmi.c should not
be built if not on an enterprise sized system?
>
> This:
>
> alloc_cpumask_var(&uv_nmi_cpu_mask, GFP_KERNEL);
> BUG_ON(!uv_nmi_cpu_mask);
>
>
> the way to check for allocation failures is by checking the return value
> of alloc_cpumask_var():
>
> BUG_ON(!alloc_cpumask_var(&uv_nmi_cpu_mask, GFP_KERNEL));
>
> I've fixed this in the patch.
Thanks!! I should have remembered this since it was my code. (doh!)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
>
--
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