linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH -next] Fix printk_once build errors due to __read

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1383152522.9435.29.camel@joe-AO722>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:02:02 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-metag@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH -next] Fix printk_once build errors due to
 __read_mostly

On Wed, 2013-10-30 at 10:18 +0000, James Hogan wrote:
> Commit 3e39c1ab04ba (printk: mark printk_once test variable
> __read_mostly) added __read_mostly to the __print_once bool in the
> printk_once() macro, but __read_mostly is defined in <linux/cache.h>
> which isn't included from <linux/printk.h>. This results in build errors
> like this:
> 
> arch/metag/mm/l2cache.c: In function 'meta_l2c_setup':
> arch/metag/mm/l2cache.c:56: error: '__read_mostly' undeclared
> 
> This is fixed by adding an include of <linux/cache.h> from
> <linux/printk.h> since I don't think printk_once() users should need to
> include <linux/cache.h> for it to work.
> 
> Note that this actually adds a recursive include, since <linux/cache.h>
> includes <linux/kernel.h>, which includes <linux/printk.h>. The actual
> dependencies are all in macros so it doesn't actually seem to result in
> any build failures, but it's clearly less than ideal.
[]
> I'm not too keen on this due to the recursive include. Is it better to
> just workaround the problem by including <linux/cache.h> from the .c
> file that fails to build, or should the original patch be removed
> instead?

Maybe also using this would help avoid some of the
circular dependency:
---
 include/linux/cache.h | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/cache.h b/include/linux/cache.h
index 4c57065..17e7e82 100644
--- a/include/linux/cache.h
+++ b/include/linux/cache.h
@@ -1,11 +1,11 @@
 #ifndef __LINUX_CACHE_H
 #define __LINUX_CACHE_H
 
-#include <linux/kernel.h>
+#include <uapi/linux/kernel.h>
 #include <asm/cache.h>
 
 #ifndef L1_CACHE_ALIGN
-#define L1_CACHE_ALIGN(x) ALIGN(x, L1_CACHE_BYTES)
+#define L1_CACHE_ALIGN(x) __ALIGN_KERNEL(x, L1_CACHE_BYTES)
 #endif
 
 #ifndef SMP_CACHE_BYTES


--
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/