[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170220104947.GE9003@leverpostej>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:49:47 +0000
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Stephen Boyd <stephen.boyd@...aro.org>
Cc: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: traps: Mark __le16, __le32, __user variables
properly
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 12:47:57AM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Luc Van Oostenryck (2017-02-18 17:58:09)
> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 08:51:12AM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >
> > > arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c:567:10: warning: Initializer entry defined twice
> > > arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c:568:10: also defined here
> > This one I find strange. Can you tell which are those two entries?
>
> This is:
>
> static const char *esr_class_str[] = {
> [0 ... ESR_ELx_EC_MAX] = "UNRECOGNIZED EC",
> [ESR_ELx_EC_UNKNOWN] = "Unknown/Uncategorized",
>
> where we initialize the entire array to an "unknown" value once, and
> then fill in the known values after that. This isn't a very common
> pattern, but it is used from time to time to avoid having lots of lines
> to do the same thing.
FWIW, it's a fairly common trick for syscall tables, which is where I
copied it from for the above. Certainly it's not that common elsewhere.
[mark@...erpostej:~/src/linux]% tail -n 11 arch/arm64/kernel/sys.c
#undef __SYSCALL
#define __SYSCALL(nr, sym) [nr] = sym,
/*
* The sys_call_table array must be 4K aligned to be accessible from
* kernel/entry.S.
*/
void * const sys_call_table[__NR_syscalls] __aligned(4096) = {
[0 ... __NR_syscalls - 1] = sys_ni_syscall,
#include <asm/unistd.h>
};
[mark@...erpostej:~/src/linux]% git grep '\[0 \.\.\. ' | grep sys
arch/arc/kernel/sys.c: [0 ... NR_syscalls-1] = sys_ni_syscall,
arch/arm64/kernel/sys.c: [0 ... __NR_syscalls - 1] = sys_ni_syscall,
arch/arm64/kernel/sys32.c: [0 ... __NR_compat_syscalls - 1] = sys_ni_syscall,
arch/c6x/kernel/sys_c6x.c: [0 ... __NR_syscalls-1] = sys_ni_syscall,
arch/metag/kernel/sys_metag.c: [0 ... __NR_syscalls-1] = sys_ni_syscall,
arch/tile/kernel/compat.c: [0 ... __NR_syscalls-1] = sys_ni_syscall,
arch/tile/kernel/sys.c: [0 ... __NR_syscalls-1] = sys_ni_syscall,
arch/unicore32/kernel/sys.c: [0 ... __NR_syscalls-1] = sys_ni_syscall,
arch/x86/entry/syscall_32.c: [0 ... __NR_syscall_compat_max] = &sys_ni_syscall,
arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c: [0 ... __NR_syscall_max] = &sys_ni_syscall,
arch/x86/um/sys_call_table_32.c: [0 ... __NR_syscall_max] = &sys_ni_syscall,
arch/x86/um/sys_call_table_64.c: [0 ... __NR_syscall_max] = &sys_ni_syscall,
arch/xtensa/kernel/syscall.c: [0 ... __NR_syscall_count - 1] = (syscall_t)&sys_ni_syscall,
It would be nice to make sparse aware of this somehow, even if it
requires some annotation.
Thanks,
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists