linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] tracing: Remove conditional locking from __DO

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHk-=wg9yCQeGK+1MdSd3RydYApkPuVnoXa0TOGiaO388Nhg0g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 10:13:43 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, 
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, 
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 
	Michael Jeanson <mjeanson@...icios.com>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, 
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, 
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, 
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, 
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org, 
	Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, Jordan Rife <jrife@...gle.com>, 
	linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] tracing: Remove conditional locking from __DO_TRACE()

On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 at 00:46, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> Using that (old) form results in:
>
>     error: control reaches end of non-void function [-Werror=return-type]

Ahh. Annoying, but yeah.

> Except of course, now we get that dangling-else warning, there is no
> winning this :-/

Well, was there any actual problem with the "jump backwards" version?
Przemek implied some problem, but ..

> So I merged that patch because of the compilers getting less confused
> and better code-gen, but if you prefer the old one we can definitely go
> back.

Oh, I'm not in any way trying to force that "_once" variable kind of
pattern. I didn't realize it had had that other compiler confusion
issue.

         Linus