[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200129184935.GU14879@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 19:49:35 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, Qian Cai <cai@....pw>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/osq_lock: fix a data race in osq_wait_next
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 04:22:53PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 05:56:55PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 12:46:26PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
> >
> > > > Marco, any thought on improving KCSAN for this to reduce the false
> > > > positives?
> > >
> > > Define 'false positive'.
> >
> > I'll use it where the code as written is correct while the tool
> > complains about it.
>
> I could be wrong, but I would guess that Marco is looking for something
> a little less subjective and a little more specific. ;-)
How is that either? If any valid translation by a compile results in
correct functionality, yet the tool complains, then surely we can speak
of a objective fact.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists