[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180814132453.093a4921@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 13:24:53 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: joel@...lfernandes.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
peterz@...radead.org, tj@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Make call_srcu() available during very early boot
On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 10:06:18 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > #define __SRCU_STRUCT_INIT(name, pcpu_name) \
> > > - { \
> > > - .sda = &pcpu_name, \
> > > - .lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(name.lock), \
> > > - .srcu_gp_seq_needed = 0 - 1, \
> > > - __SRCU_DEP_MAP_INIT(name) \
> > > - }
> > > +{ \
> > > + .sda = &pcpu_name, \
> > > + .lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(name.lock), \
> > > + .srcu_gp_seq_needed = 0 - 1, \
> >
> > Interesting initialization of -1. This was there before, but still
> > interesting none the less.
>
> If I recall correctly, this subterfuge suppresses compiler complaints
> about initializing an unsigned long with a negative number. :-/
Did you try:
.srcu_gp_seq_needed = -1UL,
?
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists