linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] perf/bench/numa: Handle discontiguous/sparse numa nodes

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-Id: <1510738564.k2rtmh3mkn.naveen@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:13:57 +0530
From:   "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Satheesh Rajendran <sathnaga@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     acme@...nel.org, bala24@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
        mingo@...nel.org, srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] perf/bench/numa: Handle discontiguous/sparse numa
 nodes

Hi Satheesh,

Satheesh Rajendran wrote:
> Hi Naveen,
> 
> 
> On Tue, 2017-10-31 at 20:46 +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
>> 
>> >  	}
>> >  	BUG_ON(nr_min > nr_max);
>> > -
>> Looks like an un-necessary change there.
>> 
>> - Naveen
>> 
> I had hit with this compilation error, so had to move the
> initialization above.

I suppose you intended to reply to Arnaldo's comment about the 
declaration being moved, since my comment above was about a blank line 
being deleted in your patch. It's preferable to not do any un-related 
changes/cleanups in a patch.

> Please advice. Thanks.
> 
>   CC       bench/numa.o
> bench/numa.c: In function ‘calc_convergence’:
> bench/numa.c:1035:3: error: ISO C90 forbids mixed declarations and code
> [-Werror=declaration-after-statement]
>    int processes = count_node_processes(node);
>    ^

Not sure what changes you made, but from the error message, I'm guessing
you placed the above statement _after_ the check for is_node_present().  
What Arnaldo recommended is to retain the processes declaration within 
the scope where it's used - in this case, the for() loop - rather than 
moving it out to the start of the function.


- Naveen


> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
> mv: cannot stat ‘bench/.numa.o.tmp’: No such file or directory
> make[4]: *** [bench/numa.o] Error 1
> make[3]: *** [bench] Error 2
> make[2]: *** [perf-in.o] Error 2
> make[1]: *** [sub-make] Error 2
> make: *** [all] Error 2
> 
> Regards,
> -Satheesh.
>> > 
>> >  	BUG_ON(sum > g->p.nr_tasks);
>> > 
>> >  	if (0 && (sum < g->p.nr_tasks))
> @@ -1027,8 +1029,9 @@ static void calc_convergence(double 
>