linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/9] sched: Add a generic function to return the preemption string.

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<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