[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160302130350.GO3604@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 10:03:50 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf tests: initialize sa.sa_flags
Em Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 01:59:01PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 12:55:22PM +0000, Colin King wrote:
> > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> >
> > The sa_flags field is not being initialized, so a garbage value is
> > being passed to sigaction. Initialize it to zero.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> > ---
> > tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/rdpmc.c | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/rdpmc.c b/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/rdpmc.c
> > index 7bb0d13..7945462 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/rdpmc.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/rdpmc.c
> > @@ -103,6 +103,7 @@ static int __test__rdpmc(void)
> >
> > sigfillset(&sa.sa_mask);
> > sa.sa_sigaction = segfault_handler;
> > + sa.sa_flags = 0;
>
> Would not something like:
>
> sa = (struct sigaction){
> .sa_sigaction = segfault_handler,
> };
> sigfillset(&sa.sa_mask);
>
> Be better?
I thought about that, but isn't that set in stone? This would be a 4
liner, while his is a one' :-)
- Arnaldo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists