[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210715035149.GI4397@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 20:51:49 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@...il.com>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
"Joel Fernandes, Google" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
rcu <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RCU: Fix macro name CONFIG_TASKS_RCU_TRACE
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 12:44:36PM +0800, Zhouyi Zhou wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 11:19 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 06:18:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 09:09:04AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > > ----- On Jul 13, 2021, at 12:16 AM, paulmck paulmck@...nel.org wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 08:56:45AM +0800, zhouzhouyi@...il.com wrote:
> > > > >> From: Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@...il.com>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hi Paul,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> During my studying of RCU, I did a grep in the kernel source tree.
> > > > >> I found there are 3 places where the macro name CONFIG_TASKS_RCU_TRACE
> > > > >> should be CONFIG_TASKS_TRACE_RCU instead.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Without memory fencing, the idle/userspace task inspection may not
> > > > >> be so accurate.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks for your constant encouragement for my studying.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Best Wishes
> > > > >> Zhouyi
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Signed-off-by: Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@...il.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Good eyes, and those could cause real bugs, so thank you!
> > > >
> > > > Hi Paul,
> > > >
> > > > This makes me wonder: what is missing testing-wise in rcutorture to
> > > > catch those issues with testing before they reach mainline ?
> > >
> > > My guess: Running on weakly ordered architectures. ;-)
> >
> > And another guess: A tool that identifies use of Kconfig options
> > that are not defined in any Kconfig* file.
> Based on Paul's second guess ;-), I did a small research, and I think
> the best answer is to modify scripts/checkpatch.pl. We modify checkpatch.pl
> to identify use of Kconfig options that are not defined in any Kconfig* file.
>
> As I am a C/C++ programmer, I would be glad to take some time to learn
> perl (checkpatch is implented in perl) first if no other volunteer is
> about to do it ;-)
I haven't heard anyone else volunteer. ;-)
Others might have opinions on where best to implement these checks,
but I must confess that I have not given it much thought.
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists