linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel/sched/core.c: Avoid unused variable on non-SMP configs

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: <CANiq72=1_pw8=wZHUk+3_GdMkg0RXOb76HKtiarADwr4Sd-a-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Sep 2018 12:32:03 +0200
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/sched/core.c: Avoid unused variable on non-SMP configs

Hi Vincent,

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Vincent Guittot
<vincent.guittot@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 at 19:00, Miguel Ojeda
> <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 6:45 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Sep 09, 2018 at 06:36:01PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>> >> No, you get a different warning depending on whether you have enabled
>> >> CONFIG_PARAVIRT_TIME_ACCOUNTING or CONFIG_IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING.
>> >
>> > Ok.
>> >
>> > Still, adding __maybe_unused to both (or writing it before the name,
>> > whatever works!) and dropping the ifdeffery is still better for
>> > readability's sake than having more ifdeffery, IMO.
>>
>> Agreed, it is quite confusing already. I tried to keep the style of
>> the code, but Ingo/Peter might prefer the cleanup. Let's see...
>
> FYI, another patch has already been sent for this warning
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/8/10/22

Indeed -- sorry, I didn't notice. The patches are different in
behavior, though; is the block there supposed to be there in non-SMP
cases? (I guess so, since originally it was there, but asking just in
case).

Cheers,
Miguel