[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 14:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] spin_lock_nested(): Always evaluate second argument
On Fri, 8 Aug 2014, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/spinlock.h b/include/linux/spinlock.h
> index 3f2867f..262ba4e 100644
> --- a/include/linux/spinlock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/spinlock.h
> @@ -197,7 +197,13 @@ static inline void do_raw_spin_unlock(raw_spinlock_t *lock) __releases(lock)
> _raw_spin_lock_nest_lock(lock, &(nest_lock)->dep_map); \
> } while (0)
> #else
> -# define raw_spin_lock_nested(lock, subclass) _raw_spin_lock(lock)
> +/*
> + * Always evaluate the 'subclass' argument to avoid that the compiler
> + * warns about set-but-not-used variables when building with
> + * CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC=n and with W=1.
> + */
I was hoping there was going to be a more important reason for this change
than to avoid compiler warnings, such as an example where someone is doing
spin_lock_nested(lock, subclass) and the expression for "subclass"
requires evaluation in all configs.
> +# define raw_spin_lock_nested(lock, subclass) \
> + _raw_spin_lock(((void)(subclass), (lock)))
> # define raw_spin_lock_nest_lock(lock, nest_lock) _raw_spin_lock(lock)
> #endif
>
--
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