[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z9fnf9g_zmbNXICh@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 10:12:31 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@...ts.linux.dev,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.ibm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/9] sched: Add a generic function to return the
preemption string.
* Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On 2025-03-16 12:15:47 [+0100], Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > > +const char *preempt_modes[] = {
> > > + "none", "voluntary", "full", "lazy", NULL,
> > > +};
> >
> > > + /* Count entries in NULL terminated preempt_modes */
> > > + for (j = 0; preempt_modes[j]; j++)
> > > + ;
> >
> > I'm pretty sure the build-time ARRAY_SIZE() primitive is superior here. ;-)
>
> It would be but it is not an option.
> That array is defined in core.c where it is "always" required while
> debug.c needs it optionally. core.c is its one compile unit while
> debug.c is included by build_utility.c. So I don't see how this can work
> unless we shift things:
Why not have it all in debug.c?
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists