linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: Make clangd usable

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: <aDQiSF0OwoSBMkE3@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 10:11:52 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
	dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
	mgorman@...e.de, vschneid@...hat.com, rafael@...nel.org,
	viresh.kumar@...aro.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
	paulmck@...nel.org, hannes@...xchg.org, surenb@...gle.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	tj@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Make clangd usable


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> Due to the weird Makefile setup of sched the various files do not 
> compile as stand alone units. The new generation of editors are 
> trying to do just this -- mostly to offer fancy things like 
> completions but also better syntax highlighting and code navigation.
> 
> Specifically, I've been playing around with neovim and clangd.
> 
> Setting up clangd on the kernel source is a giant pain in the arse 
> (this really should be improved), but once you do manage, you run 
> into dumb stuff like the above.
> 
> Fix up the scheduler files to at least pretend to work.

>  kernel/sched/autogroup.c         |    3 +++
>  kernel/sched/autogroup.h         |    2 ++
>  kernel/sched/clock.c             |    3 +++
>  kernel/sched/completion.c        |    5 +++++
>  kernel/sched/core_sched.c        |    2 ++
>  kernel/sched/cpuacct.c           |    2 ++
>  kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c       |    1 +
>  kernel/sched/cpudeadline.h       |    2 ++
>  kernel/sched/cpufreq.c           |    1 +
>  kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c |    2 ++
>  kernel/sched/cpupri.c            |    1 +
>  kernel/sched/cpupri.h            |    3 +++
>  kernel/sched/cputime.c           |    3 +++
>  kernel/sched/deadline.c          |    4 ++++
>  kernel/sched/debug.c             |    3 +++
>  kernel/sched/idle.c              |    5 +++++
>  kernel/sched/isolation.c         |    2 ++
>  kernel/sched/loadavg.c           |    2 ++
>  kernel/sched/membarrier.c        |    2 ++
>  kernel/sched/pelt.c              |    1 +
>  kernel/sched/pelt.h              |    7 ++++++-
>  kernel/sched/psi.c               |    2 ++
>  kernel/sched/rt.c                |    3 +++
>  kernel/sched/sched-pelt.h        |    1 +
>  kernel/sched/sched.h             |    1 +
>  kernel/sched/smp.h               |    1 +
>  kernel/sched/stats.c             |    1 +
>  kernel/sched/stop_task.c         |    1 +
>  kernel/sched/swait.c             |    1 +
>  kernel/sched/topology.c          |    2 ++
>  kernel/sched/wait.c              |    1 +
>  kernel/sched/wait_bit.c          |    3 +++
>  32 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Yeah, I see no reason why this wouldn't work - and the original build 
speedup will still be present.

Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>

Thanks,

	Ingo