[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200302183954.GA166273@kroah.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 19:39:54 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
Cc: Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
"open list:ANDROID DRIVERS" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] sched/wait: avoid double initialization in
___wait_event()
On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 07:03:19PM +0100, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> > > case BINDER_SET_MAX_THREADS: {
> > > - int max_threads;
> > > + int max_threads __no_initialize;
> >
> > Is this really needed? A single integer in a rarely called ioctl()
> > being initialized twice doesn't warrant this optimization.
>
> It really does not, and I didn't have this bit in v1.
> But if we don't want this diff to bit rot, we'd better have a
> Coccinelle script generating it.
> The script I added to the description of patch 2/3 introduced this
> annotation, and I thought keeping it is better than trying to teach
> the script about the size of the arguments.
Please fix the script, don't add stuff to the kernel that is not needed.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists