[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aHCpbB7cfwfdFBzl@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 09:04:28 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] panic: Fix compilation error (`make W=1`)
On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 10:48:29AM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 06:49:47PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 08:54:25AM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 03:01:33PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 12:48:16 +0300 Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
...
> > > sys_info_avail[] has another purpose for being a counterpart of si_names[],
> > > which could be extended in future, so we make it obviously stand-alone. As
> > > for definition of si_names[], we explicitly added comment:
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * When 'si_names' gets updated, please make sure the 'sys_info_avail'
> > > * below is updated accordingly.
> > > */
> > > static const struct sys_info_name si_names[] = {
> > > { SYS_INFO_TASKS, "tasks" },
> > > { SYS_INFO_MEM, "mem" },
> > >
> > > which has also been discussed in another thread:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/aG3o2RFHc5iXnJef@U-2FWC9VHC-2323.local/
> > >
> > > And I suggest to keep sys_info_avail[], and either Nathan or Sergey's patch
> > > works for me.
> >
> > We could do something like this to keep the sizeof() obvious and
> > separate, while still eliminating the variable? Happy to bike shed
> > aspects of it like the macro name and such.
...
> > +#define SYS_INFO_MAX_LEN (sizeof("tasks,mem,timers,locks,ftrace,all_bt,blocked_tasks") + 1)
The ' + 1' is batter to leave for the names below.
Or at bare minimum it needs a semantic explanation.
If it's for NUL, definitely shouldn't be part of the
definition.
> > int sysctl_sys_info_handler(const struct ctl_table *ro_table, int write,
> > void *buffer, size_t *lenp,
> > loff_t *ppos)
> > {
> > - char names[sizeof(sys_info_avail) + 1];
> > + char names[SYS_INFO_MAX_LEN];
> > struct ctl_table table;
> > unsigned long *si_bits_global;
>
> Looks great to me, thanks!
>
> We can even move the SYS_INFO_MAX_LEN definition close to si_names[],
Agree.
> initially sys_info_avail[] was next to si_names[], and was moved inside
> "#ifdef CONFIG_SYSCTL" region for compiling CONFIG_SYSCTL=n case.
But let me think a bit, perhaps we can come up with something even better.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists