* [RFC PATCH 0/5] rcu: fix sparse warnings
@ 2014-06-11 20:39 Pranith Kumar
2014-06-11 20:39 ` [RFC PATCH 1/5] kernel/rcu/tree.c:1272 fix a sparse warning Pranith Kumar
` (4 more replies)
0 siblings, 5 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Pranith Kumar @ 2014-06-11 20:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: paulmck, linux-kernel
The following patch series fixes sparse warning. There are still 3 warnings left
which I am figuring out. I wanted to send these to get feedback and see if I am
on the right path.
Patch 1 is the significant one which involves some refactoring. I am guessing
the 3 remaining sparse warnings will require similar refactoring.
Patch 4 remove the __noreturn attribute as this confuses sparse. I am not sure
if removing this is the right thing to do or if we should be fixing sparse.
The other 3 are trivial.
Pranith Kumar (5):
kernel/rcu/tree.c:1272 fix a sparse warning
kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h:1494 fix a sparse warning
kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h:990 fix a sparse warning
kernel/rcu/tree.c:3435 fix a sparse warning
kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c:185 fix a sparse warning
kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c | 2 +-
kernel/rcu/tree.c | 70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 3 +++
3 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [RFC PATCH 1/5] kernel/rcu/tree.c:1272 fix a sparse warning
2014-06-11 20:39 [RFC PATCH 0/5] rcu: fix sparse warnings Pranith Kumar
@ 2014-06-11 20:39 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-06-12 23:16 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-11 20:39 ` [RFC PATCH 2/5] kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h:1494 " Pranith Kumar
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Pranith Kumar @ 2014-06-11 20:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: paulmck, linux-kernel, Josh Triplett
kernel/rcu/tree.c:1272:9: warning: context imbalance in 'rcu_start_future_gp' - different lock contexts for basic block
We can simplify the function by keeping the contexts together and removing
redundant checks.
Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
---
kernel/rcu/tree.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index f1ba773..9ab84d3 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -1234,49 +1234,54 @@ rcu_start_future_gp(struct rcu_node *rnp, struct rcu_data *rdp,
}
/*
- * There might be no grace period in progress. If we don't already
+ * There is be no grace period in progress. If we don't already
* hold it, acquire the root rcu_node structure's lock in order to
- * start one (if needed).
+ * start one.
*/
if (rnp != rnp_root) {
raw_spin_lock(&rnp_root->lock);
smp_mb__after_unlock_lock();
+ /*
+ * Get a new grace-period number. If there really is no grace
+ * period in progress, it will be smaller than the one we obtained
+ * earlier. Adjust callbacks as needed. Note that even no-CBs
+ */
+ c = rcu_cbs_completed(rdp->rsp, rnp_root);
+
+ /*
+ * If the needed request for the required grace period is already
+ * recorded, trace and leave.
+ */
+ if (rnp_root->need_future_gp[c & 0x1]) {
+ trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c, TPS("Prestartedroot"));
+ raw_spin_unlock(&rnp_root->lock);
+ goto out;
+ }
+
+ /* Record the need for the future grace period. */
+ rnp_root->need_future_gp[c & 0x1]++;
+
+ /*
+ * Start a new grace period since it is not started
+ */
+ trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c, TPS("Startedroot"));
+ ret = rcu_start_gp_advanced(rdp->rsp, rnp_root, rdp);
+ raw_spin_unlock(&rnp_root->lock);
+ goto out;
}
+ /* rnp == rnp_root, we already hold the lock */
+ trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c, TPS("StartedLeaf"));
+ ret = rcu_start_gp_advanced(rdp->rsp, rnp, rdp);
+out:
/*
- * Get a new grace-period number. If there really is no grace
- * period in progress, it will be smaller than the one we obtained
- * earlier. Adjust callbacks as needed. Note that even no-CBs
- * CPUs have a ->nxtcompleted[] array, so no no-CBs checks needed.
+ * Adjust callbacks as needed. Note that even no-CBs CPUs
+ * have a ->nxtcompleted[] array, so no no-CBs checks needed.
*/
- c = rcu_cbs_completed(rdp->rsp, rnp_root);
for (i = RCU_DONE_TAIL; i < RCU_NEXT_TAIL; i++)
if (ULONG_CMP_LT(c, rdp->nxtcompleted[i]))
rdp->nxtcompleted[i] = c;
- /*
- * If the needed for the required grace period is already
- * recorded, trace and leave.
- */
- if (rnp_root->need_future_gp[c & 0x1]) {
- trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c, TPS("Prestartedroot"));
- goto unlock_out;
- }
-
- /* Record the need for the future grace period. */
- rnp_root->need_future_gp[c & 0x1]++;
-
- /* If a grace period is not already in progress, start one. */
- if (rnp_root->gpnum != rnp_root->completed) {
- trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c, TPS("Startedleafroot"));
- } else {
- trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c, TPS("Startedroot"));
- ret = rcu_start_gp_advanced(rdp->rsp, rnp_root, rdp);
- }
-unlock_out:
- if (rnp != rnp_root)
- raw_spin_unlock(&rnp_root->lock);
-out:
if (c_out != NULL)
*c_out = c;
return ret;
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [RFC PATCH 2/5] kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h:1494 fix a sparse warning
2014-06-11 20:39 [RFC PATCH 0/5] rcu: fix sparse warnings Pranith Kumar
2014-06-11 20:39 ` [RFC PATCH 1/5] kernel/rcu/tree.c:1272 fix a sparse warning Pranith Kumar
@ 2014-06-11 20:39 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-06-26 19:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-11 20:39 ` [RFC PATCH 3/5] kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h:990 " Pranith Kumar
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Pranith Kumar @ 2014-06-11 20:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: paulmck, linux-kernel, Josh Triplett
kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h:1494:13: warning: context imbalance in 'rcu_initiate_boost' - unexpected unlock
by annotating the function with releases()
Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
---
kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
index cbc2c45..0c955d9 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
@@ -1256,6 +1256,7 @@ static int rcu_boost_kthread(void *arg)
* about it going away.
*/
static void rcu_initiate_boost(struct rcu_node *rnp, unsigned long flags)
+ __releases(rnp->lock)
{
struct task_struct *t;
@@ -1491,6 +1492,7 @@ static void rcu_prepare_kthreads(int cpu)
#else /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
static void rcu_initiate_boost(struct rcu_node *rnp, unsigned long flags)
+ __releases(rnp->lock)
{
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
}
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [RFC PATCH 3/5] kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h:990 fix a sparse warning
2014-06-11 20:39 [RFC PATCH 0/5] rcu: fix sparse warnings Pranith Kumar
2014-06-11 20:39 ` [RFC PATCH 1/5] kernel/rcu/tree.c:1272 fix a sparse warning Pranith Kumar
2014-06-11 20:39 ` [RFC PATCH 2/5] kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h:1494 " Pranith Kumar
@ 2014-06-11 20:39 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-06-26 19:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-11 20:39 ` [RFC PATCH 4/5] kernel/rcu/tree.c:3435 " Pranith Kumar
2014-06-11 20:39 ` [RFC PATCH 5/5] kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c:185 " Pranith Kumar
4 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Pranith Kumar @ 2014-06-11 20:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: paulmck, linux-kernel, Josh Triplett
kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h:990:13: warning: context imbalance in 'rcu_report_unblock_qs_rnp' - unexpected unlock
by annotating the function with __releases()
Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
---
kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
index 0c955d9..9f85469 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
@@ -988,6 +988,7 @@ static int rcu_preempt_blocked_readers_cgp(struct rcu_node *rnp)
/* Because preemptible RCU does not exist, no quieting of tasks. */
static void rcu_report_unblock_qs_rnp(struct rcu_node *rnp, unsigned long flags)
+ __releases(rnp->lock)
{
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
}
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [RFC PATCH 4/5] kernel/rcu/tree.c:3435 fix a sparse warning
2014-06-11 20:39 [RFC PATCH 0/5] rcu: fix sparse warnings Pranith Kumar
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2014-06-11 20:39 ` [RFC PATCH 3/5] kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h:990 " Pranith Kumar
@ 2014-06-11 20:39 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-06-11 21:25 ` josh
2014-06-11 20:39 ` [RFC PATCH 5/5] kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c:185 " Pranith Kumar
4 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Pranith Kumar @ 2014-06-11 20:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: paulmck, linux-kernel, Josh Triplett
kernel/rcu/tree.c:3435:21: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different modifiers)
kernel/rcu/tree.c:3435:21: expected int ( *threadfn )( ... )
kernel/rcu/tree.c:3435:21: got int ( static [toplevel] [noreturn] *<noident> )( ... )
by removing __noreturn attribute and adding unreachable() as suggested on the
mailing list: http://www.kernelhub.org/?p=2&msg=436683
Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
---
kernel/rcu/tree.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index 9ab84d3..6029a2e 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -1689,7 +1689,7 @@ static void rcu_gp_cleanup(struct rcu_state *rsp)
/*
* Body of kthread that handles grace periods.
*/
-static int __noreturn rcu_gp_kthread(void *arg)
+static int rcu_gp_kthread(void *arg)
{
int fqs_state;
int gf;
@@ -1777,6 +1777,9 @@ static int __noreturn rcu_gp_kthread(void *arg)
/* Handle grace-period end. */
rcu_gp_cleanup(rsp);
}
+
+ unreachable();
+ return 0;
}
/*
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [RFC PATCH 5/5] kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c:185 fix a sparse warning
2014-06-11 20:39 [RFC PATCH 0/5] rcu: fix sparse warnings Pranith Kumar
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2014-06-11 20:39 ` [RFC PATCH 4/5] kernel/rcu/tree.c:3435 " Pranith Kumar
@ 2014-06-11 20:39 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-06-11 21:47 ` josh
4 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Pranith Kumar @ 2014-06-11 20:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: paulmck, linux-kernel, Josh Triplett
fix the following sparse warning
kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c:185:1: warning: symbol 'boost_mutex' was not declared. Should it be static?
by marking boost_mutex as a static mutex
Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
---
kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c
index 7fa34f8..1cd4b2d 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c
@@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ static u64 notrace rcu_trace_clock_local(void)
#endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_TRACE */
static unsigned long boost_starttime; /* jiffies of next boost test start. */
-DEFINE_MUTEX(boost_mutex); /* protect setting boost_starttime */
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(boost_mutex); /* protect setting boost_starttime */
/* and boost task create/destroy. */
static atomic_t barrier_cbs_count; /* Barrier callbacks registered. */
static bool barrier_phase; /* Test phase. */
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] kernel/rcu/tree.c:3435 fix a sparse warning
2014-06-11 20:39 ` [RFC PATCH 4/5] kernel/rcu/tree.c:3435 " Pranith Kumar
@ 2014-06-11 21:25 ` josh
2014-06-12 1:37 ` Pranith Kumar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: josh @ 2014-06-11 21:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pranith Kumar; +Cc: paulmck, linux-kernel
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 04:39:42PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> kernel/rcu/tree.c:3435:21: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different modifiers)
> kernel/rcu/tree.c:3435:21: expected int ( *threadfn )( ... )
> kernel/rcu/tree.c:3435:21: got int ( static [toplevel] [noreturn] *<noident> )( ... )
>
> by removing __noreturn attribute and adding unreachable() as suggested on the
> mailing list: http://www.kernelhub.org/?p=2&msg=436683
>
> Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
No, we should not do this. And the mailing list post you point to seems
to explicitly recommend using noreturn rather than unreachable.
If sparse doesn't understand this, that's a bug in sparse, not in the
kernel. Sparse needs to understand that it's OK to drop noreturn from a
function pointer type, just not OK to add it.
Rationale: If you call a noreturn function through a non-noreturn
function pointer, you might end up with unnecessary cleanup code, but
the call will work. If you call a non-noreturn function through a
noreturn function pointer, the caller will not expect a return, and may
crash; *that* should require a cast.
> kernel/rcu/tree.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index 9ab84d3..6029a2e 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -1689,7 +1689,7 @@ static void rcu_gp_cleanup(struct rcu_state *rsp)
> /*
> * Body of kthread that handles grace periods.
> */
> -static int __noreturn rcu_gp_kthread(void *arg)
> +static int rcu_gp_kthread(void *arg)
> {
> int fqs_state;
> int gf;
> @@ -1777,6 +1777,9 @@ static int __noreturn rcu_gp_kthread(void *arg)
> /* Handle grace-period end. */
> rcu_gp_cleanup(rsp);
> }
> +
> + unreachable();
> + return 0;
> }
>
> /*
> --
> 1.9.1
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c:185 fix a sparse warning
2014-06-11 20:39 ` [RFC PATCH 5/5] kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c:185 " Pranith Kumar
@ 2014-06-11 21:47 ` josh
2014-07-08 22:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: josh @ 2014-06-11 21:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pranith Kumar; +Cc: paulmck, linux-kernel
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 04:39:43PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> fix the following sparse warning
>
> kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c:185:1: warning: symbol 'boost_mutex' was not declared. Should it be static?
>
> by marking boost_mutex as a static mutex
>
> Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
Please preserve the comment alignment (by deleting a tab). With that
fixed:
Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
> kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c
> index 7fa34f8..1cd4b2d 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c
> @@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ static u64 notrace rcu_trace_clock_local(void)
> #endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_TRACE */
>
> static unsigned long boost_starttime; /* jiffies of next boost test start. */
> -DEFINE_MUTEX(boost_mutex); /* protect setting boost_starttime */
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(boost_mutex); /* protect setting boost_starttime */
> /* and boost task create/destroy. */
> static atomic_t barrier_cbs_count; /* Barrier callbacks registered. */
> static bool barrier_phase; /* Test phase. */
> --
> 1.9.1
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] kernel/rcu/tree.c:3435 fix a sparse warning
2014-06-11 21:25 ` josh
@ 2014-06-12 1:37 ` Pranith Kumar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Pranith Kumar @ 2014-06-12 1:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Josh Triplett; +Cc: Paul McKenney, LKML
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 5:25 PM, <josh@joshtriplett.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 04:39:42PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
>> kernel/rcu/tree.c:3435:21: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different modifiers)
>> kernel/rcu/tree.c:3435:21: expected int ( *threadfn )( ... )
>> kernel/rcu/tree.c:3435:21: got int ( static [toplevel] [noreturn] *<noident> )( ... )
>>
>> by removing __noreturn attribute and adding unreachable() as suggested on the
>> mailing list: http://www.kernelhub.org/?p=2&msg=436683
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
>
> No, we should not do this. And the mailing list post you point to seems
> to explicitly recommend using noreturn rather than unreachable.
>
> If sparse doesn't understand this, that's a bug in sparse, not in the
> kernel. Sparse needs to understand that it's OK to drop noreturn from a
> function pointer type, just not OK to add it.
>
> Rationale: If you call a noreturn function through a non-noreturn
> function pointer, you might end up with unnecessary cleanup code, but
> the call will work. If you call a non-noreturn function through a
> noreturn function pointer, the caller will not expect a return, and may
> crash; *that* should require a cast.
>
Yes, I understand the rationale. I think this should be fixed in
sparse. Please drop this patch.
Thanks!
--
Pranith
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] kernel/rcu/tree.c:1272 fix a sparse warning
2014-06-11 20:39 ` [RFC PATCH 1/5] kernel/rcu/tree.c:1272 fix a sparse warning Pranith Kumar
@ 2014-06-12 23:16 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-13 4:54 ` Pranith Kumar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2014-06-12 23:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pranith Kumar; +Cc: linux-kernel, Josh Triplett
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 04:39:39PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> kernel/rcu/tree.c:1272:9: warning: context imbalance in 'rcu_start_future_gp' - different lock contexts for basic block
>
> We can simplify the function by keeping the contexts together and removing
> redundant checks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
> ---
> kernel/rcu/tree.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
> 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index f1ba773..9ab84d3 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -1234,49 +1234,54 @@ rcu_start_future_gp(struct rcu_node *rnp, struct rcu_data *rdp,
> }
>
> /*
> - * There might be no grace period in progress. If we don't already
> + * There is be no grace period in progress. If we don't already
We actually don't know at this point, unless rnp==rnp_root. Otherwise,
the grace period might have started, but initialization might not yet
have reached rnp.
> * hold it, acquire the root rcu_node structure's lock in order to
> - * start one (if needed).
> + * start one.
> */
> if (rnp != rnp_root) {
> raw_spin_lock(&rnp_root->lock);
> smp_mb__after_unlock_lock();
I am not convinced that this transformation is correct, especially in
the rnp==rnp_root case. For one thing, I don't see the need for a
future grace period being recorded in that case.
And I believe that if this transformation is fixed, there will be some
duplicate code, which scares me more than sparse false positives. So I
am not willing to take this sort of transformation. Or am I missing
something?
> + /*
> + * Get a new grace-period number. If there really is no grace
> + * period in progress, it will be smaller than the one we obtained
> + * earlier. Adjust callbacks as needed. Note that even no-CBs
> + */
> + c = rcu_cbs_completed(rdp->rsp, rnp_root);
But I believe that this statement could be moved into the preceding "if"
statement in the original code. If this is really the case, it could
be a good change.
Thanx, Paul
> +
> + /*
> + * If the needed request for the required grace period is already
> + * recorded, trace and leave.
> + */
> + if (rnp_root->need_future_gp[c & 0x1]) {
> + trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c, TPS("Prestartedroot"));
> + raw_spin_unlock(&rnp_root->lock);
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + /* Record the need for the future grace period. */
> + rnp_root->need_future_gp[c & 0x1]++;
> +
> + /*
> + * Start a new grace period since it is not started
> + */
> + trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c, TPS("Startedroot"));
> + ret = rcu_start_gp_advanced(rdp->rsp, rnp_root, rdp);
> + raw_spin_unlock(&rnp_root->lock);
> + goto out;
> }
>
> + /* rnp == rnp_root, we already hold the lock */
> + trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c, TPS("StartedLeaf"));
> + ret = rcu_start_gp_advanced(rdp->rsp, rnp, rdp);
> +out:
> /*
> - * Get a new grace-period number. If there really is no grace
> - * period in progress, it will be smaller than the one we obtained
> - * earlier. Adjust callbacks as needed. Note that even no-CBs
> - * CPUs have a ->nxtcompleted[] array, so no no-CBs checks needed.
> + * Adjust callbacks as needed. Note that even no-CBs CPUs
> + * have a ->nxtcompleted[] array, so no no-CBs checks needed.
> */
> - c = rcu_cbs_completed(rdp->rsp, rnp_root);
> for (i = RCU_DONE_TAIL; i < RCU_NEXT_TAIL; i++)
> if (ULONG_CMP_LT(c, rdp->nxtcompleted[i]))
> rdp->nxtcompleted[i] = c;
>
> - /*
> - * If the needed for the required grace period is already
> - * recorded, trace and leave.
> - */
> - if (rnp_root->need_future_gp[c & 0x1]) {
> - trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c, TPS("Prestartedroot"));
> - goto unlock_out;
> - }
> -
> - /* Record the need for the future grace period. */
> - rnp_root->need_future_gp[c & 0x1]++;
> -
> - /* If a grace period is not already in progress, start one. */
> - if (rnp_root->gpnum != rnp_root->completed) {
> - trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c, TPS("Startedleafroot"));
> - } else {
> - trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c, TPS("Startedroot"));
> - ret = rcu_start_gp_advanced(rdp->rsp, rnp_root, rdp);
> - }
> -unlock_out:
> - if (rnp != rnp_root)
> - raw_spin_unlock(&rnp_root->lock);
> -out:
> if (c_out != NULL)
> *c_out = c;
> return ret;
> --
> 1.9.1
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] kernel/rcu/tree.c:1272 fix a sparse warning
2014-06-12 23:16 ` Paul E. McKenney
@ 2014-06-13 4:54 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-06-13 5:52 ` Pranith Kumar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Pranith Kumar @ 2014-06-13 4:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: paulmck; +Cc: linux-kernel, Josh Triplett
On 06/12/2014 07:16 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 04:39:39PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
>> kernel/rcu/tree.c:1272:9: warning: context imbalance in 'rcu_start_future_gp' - different lock contexts for basic block
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
>> index f1ba773..9ab84d3 100644
>> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
>> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
>> @@ -1234,49 +1234,54 @@ rcu_start_future_gp(struct rcu_node *rnp, struct rcu_data *rdp,
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> - * There might be no grace period in progress. If we don't already
>> + * There is be no grace period in progress. If we don't already
>
> We actually don't know at this point, unless rnp==rnp_root. Otherwise,
> the grace period might have started, but initialization might not yet
> have reached rnp.
I should have mentioned that I wrote this on top of the previous patch where we
were checking the root node for presence of a grace period
ACCESS_ONCE(rnp_root->gpnum) != ACCESS_ONCE(rnp_root->completed)
But, I realize that even this does not guarantee that a grace period is in
progress as we do not yet have the lock for the root.
>
>> * hold it, acquire the root rcu_node structure's lock in order to
>> - * start one (if needed).
>> + * start one.
>> */
>> if (rnp != rnp_root) {
>> raw_spin_lock(&rnp_root->lock);
>> smp_mb__after_unlock_lock();
>
> I am not convinced that this transformation is correct, especially in
> the rnp==rnp_root case. For one thing, I don't see the need for a
> future grace period being recorded in that case.
>
> And I believe that if this transformation is fixed, there will be some
> duplicate code, which scares me more than sparse false positives. So I
> am not willing to take this sort of transformation. Or am I missing
> something?
>
You are right. I knew I missed something! Even though this started as an
exercise to remove the sparse warning, I thought I could simplify the function
since I could see that we are doing some things twice.
Please find v2 below which takes care of the issues you mentioned. RFC please!
simplify the rcu_start_future_gp function. fix sparse warning as an added bonus :)
Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
---
kernel/rcu/tree.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------
1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index f1ba773..ee98d0b 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -1192,44 +1192,60 @@ static void trace_rcu_future_gp(struct rcu_node *rnp, struct rcu_data *rdp,
}
/*
+ * Adjust callbacks as needed. Note that even no-CBs CPUs
+ * have a ->nxtcompleted[] array, so no no-CBs checks needed.
+ */
+static void rcu_adjust_callbacks(unsigned long c, struct rcu_data *rdp)
+{
+ int i;
+ for (i = RCU_DONE_TAIL; i < RCU_NEXT_TAIL; i++)
+ if (ULONG_CMP_LT(c, rdp->nxtcompleted[i]))
+ rdp->nxtcompleted[i] = c;
+}
+
+/*
* Start some future grace period, as needed to handle newly arrived
* callbacks. The required future grace periods are recorded in each
* rcu_node structure's ->need_future_gp field. Returns true if there
* is reason to awaken the grace-period kthread.
*
* The caller must hold the specified rcu_node structure's ->lock.
+ *
+ * This is called recursively at-most twice, once with a rcu_node and
+ * once with the root rcu_node.
*/
static bool __maybe_unused
rcu_start_future_gp(struct rcu_node *rnp, struct rcu_data *rdp,
unsigned long *c_out)
{
unsigned long c;
- int i;
bool ret = false;
struct rcu_node *rnp_root = rcu_get_root(rdp->rsp);
+ bool is_root = (rnp_root == rnp);
/*
* Pick up grace-period number for new callbacks. If this
* grace period is already marked as needed, return to the caller.
*/
c = rcu_cbs_completed(rdp->rsp, rnp);
- trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c, TPS("Startleaf"));
+ trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c,
+ is_root ? TPS("Startedroot") : TPS("Startleaf"));
if (rnp->need_future_gp[c & 0x1]) {
- trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c, TPS("Prestartleaf"));
+ trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c,
+ is_root ? TPS("Prestartroot") : TPS("Prestartleaf"));
goto out;
}
/*
- * If either this rcu_node structure or the root rcu_node structure
- * believe that a grace period is in progress, then we must wait
- * for the one following, which is in "c". Because our request
- * will be noticed at the end of the current grace period, we don't
- * need to explicitly start one.
+ * If this rcu_node structure believes that a grace period is in progress,
+ * then we must wait for the one following, which is in "c".
+ * Because our request will be noticed at the end of the current grace
+ * period, we don't need to explicitly start one.
*/
- if (rnp->gpnum != rnp->completed ||
- ACCESS_ONCE(rnp->gpnum) != ACCESS_ONCE(rnp->completed)) {
+ if (rnp->gpnum != rnp->completed) {
rnp->need_future_gp[c & 0x1]++;
- trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c, TPS("Startedleaf"));
+ trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c,
+ is_root ? TPS("Startedleafroot") : TPS("Startleaf"));
goto out;
}
@@ -1241,41 +1257,19 @@ rcu_start_future_gp(struct rcu_node *rnp, struct rcu_data *rdp,
if (rnp != rnp_root) {
raw_spin_lock(&rnp_root->lock);
smp_mb__after_unlock_lock();
- }
-
- /*
- * Get a new grace-period number. If there really is no grace
- * period in progress, it will be smaller than the one we obtained
- * earlier. Adjust callbacks as needed. Note that even no-CBs
- * CPUs have a ->nxtcompleted[] array, so no no-CBs checks needed.
- */
- c = rcu_cbs_completed(rdp->rsp, rnp_root);
- for (i = RCU_DONE_TAIL; i < RCU_NEXT_TAIL; i++)
- if (ULONG_CMP_LT(c, rdp->nxtcompleted[i]))
- rdp->nxtcompleted[i] = c;
- /*
- * If the needed for the required grace period is already
- * recorded, trace and leave.
- */
- if (rnp_root->need_future_gp[c & 0x1]) {
- trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c, TPS("Prestartedroot"));
- goto unlock_out;
+ /*
+ * Start a new grace period using the root node
+ */
+ ret = rcu_start_future_gp(rnp_root, rdp, &c);
+ raw_spin_unlock(&rnp_root->lock);
+ goto out;
}
- /* Record the need for the future grace period. */
- rnp_root->need_future_gp[c & 0x1]++;
-
- /* If a grace period is not already in progress, start one. */
- if (rnp_root->gpnum != rnp_root->completed) {
- trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c, TPS("Startedleafroot"));
- } else {
- trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c, TPS("Startedroot"));
- ret = rcu_start_gp_advanced(rdp->rsp, rnp_root, rdp);
- }
-unlock_out:
- if (rnp != rnp_root)
- raw_spin_unlock(&rnp_root->lock);
+ rcu_adjust_callbacks(c, rdp);
+ /* rnp == rnp_root, we already hold the lock */
+ trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c, TPS("Startedroot"));
+ ret = rcu_start_gp_advanced(rdp->rsp, rnp, rdp);
out:
if (c_out != NULL)
*c_out = c;
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] kernel/rcu/tree.c:1272 fix a sparse warning
2014-06-13 4:54 ` Pranith Kumar
@ 2014-06-13 5:52 ` Pranith Kumar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Pranith Kumar @ 2014-06-13 5:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: paulmck; +Cc: linux-kernel, Josh Triplett
On 06/13/2014 12:54 AM, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> On 06/12/2014 07:16 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 04:39:39PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
>>> kernel/rcu/tree.c:1272:9: warning: context imbalance in 'rcu_start_future_gp' - different lock contexts for basic block
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
>>> index f1ba773..9ab84d3 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
>>> @@ -1234,49 +1234,54 @@ rcu_start_future_gp(struct rcu_node *rnp, struct rcu_data *rdp,
>>> }
>>>
>>> /*
>>> - * There might be no grace period in progress. If we don't already
>>> + * There is be no grace period in progress. If we don't already
>>
>> We actually don't know at this point, unless rnp==rnp_root. Otherwise,
>> the grace period might have started, but initialization might not yet
>> have reached rnp.
>
> I should have mentioned that I wrote this on top of the previous patch where we
> were checking the root node for presence of a grace period
> ACCESS_ONCE(rnp_root->gpnum) != ACCESS_ONCE(rnp_root->completed)
>
> But, I realize that even this does not guarantee that a grace period is in
> progress as we do not yet have the lock for the root.
>
>>
>>> * hold it, acquire the root rcu_node structure's lock in order to
>>> - * start one (if needed).
>>> + * start one.
>>> */
>>> if (rnp != rnp_root) {
>>> raw_spin_lock(&rnp_root->lock);
>>> smp_mb__after_unlock_lock();
>>
>> I am not convinced that this transformation is correct, especially in
>> the rnp==rnp_root case. For one thing, I don't see the need for a
>> future grace period being recorded in that case.
>>
>> And I believe that if this transformation is fixed, there will be some
>> duplicate code, which scares me more than sparse false positives. So I
>> am not willing to take this sort of transformation. Or am I missing
>> something?
>>
>
> You are right. I knew I missed something! Even though this started as an
> exercise to remove the sparse warning, I thought I could simplify the function
> since I could see that we are doing some things twice.
>
> Please find v2 below which takes care of the issues you mentioned. RFC please!
>
Please find v3 which removes an unnecessary function I introduced.
simplify the function. fix sparse warning as an added bonus :)
Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
---
kernel/rcu/tree.c | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------------
1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index f1ba773..639d7a0 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -1198,6 +1198,9 @@ static void trace_rcu_future_gp(struct rcu_node *rnp, struct rcu_data *rdp,
* is reason to awaken the grace-period kthread.
*
* The caller must hold the specified rcu_node structure's ->lock.
+ *
+ * This is called recursively at-most twice, once with a rcu_node and a root
+ * rcu_node.
*/
static bool __maybe_unused
rcu_start_future_gp(struct rcu_node *rnp, struct rcu_data *rdp,
@@ -1207,29 +1210,31 @@ rcu_start_future_gp(struct rcu_node *rnp, struct rcu_data *rdp,
int i;
bool ret = false;
struct rcu_node *rnp_root = rcu_get_root(rdp->rsp);
+ bool is_root = (rnp_root == rnp);
/*
* Pick up grace-period number for new callbacks. If this
* grace period is already marked as needed, return to the caller.
*/
c = rcu_cbs_completed(rdp->rsp, rnp);
- trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c, TPS("Startleaf"));
+ trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c,
+ is_root ? TPS("Startedroot") : TPS("Startleaf"));
if (rnp->need_future_gp[c & 0x1]) {
- trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c, TPS("Prestartleaf"));
+ trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c,
+ is_root ? TPS("Prestartroot") : TPS("Prestartleaf"));
goto out;
}
/*
- * If either this rcu_node structure or the root rcu_node structure
- * believe that a grace period is in progress, then we must wait
- * for the one following, which is in "c". Because our request
- * will be noticed at the end of the current grace period, we don't
- * need to explicitly start one.
+ * If this rcu_node structure believes that a grace period is in progress,
+ * then we must wait for the one following, which is in "c".
+ * Because our request will be noticed at the end of the current grace
+ * period, we don't need to explicitly start one.
*/
- if (rnp->gpnum != rnp->completed ||
- ACCESS_ONCE(rnp->gpnum) != ACCESS_ONCE(rnp->completed)) {
+ if (rnp->gpnum != rnp->completed) {
rnp->need_future_gp[c & 0x1]++;
- trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c, TPS("Startedleaf"));
+ trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c,
+ is_root ? TPS("Startedleafroot") : TPS("Startleaf"));
goto out;
}
@@ -1241,41 +1246,25 @@ rcu_start_future_gp(struct rcu_node *rnp, struct rcu_data *rdp,
if (rnp != rnp_root) {
raw_spin_lock(&rnp_root->lock);
smp_mb__after_unlock_lock();
+
+ /*
+ * Start a new grace period with the root node
+ */
+ ret = rcu_start_future_gp(rnp_root, rdp, &c);
+ raw_spin_unlock(&rnp_root->lock);
+ goto out;
}
/*
- * Get a new grace-period number. If there really is no grace
- * period in progress, it will be smaller than the one we obtained
- * earlier. Adjust callbacks as needed. Note that even no-CBs
- * CPUs have a ->nxtcompleted[] array, so no no-CBs checks needed.
+ * Adjust callbacks as needed. Note that even no-CBs CPUs
+ * have a ->nxtcompleted[] array, so no no-CBs checks needed.
*/
- c = rcu_cbs_completed(rdp->rsp, rnp_root);
for (i = RCU_DONE_TAIL; i < RCU_NEXT_TAIL; i++)
if (ULONG_CMP_LT(c, rdp->nxtcompleted[i]))
rdp->nxtcompleted[i] = c;
-
- /*
- * If the needed for the required grace period is already
- * recorded, trace and leave.
- */
- if (rnp_root->need_future_gp[c & 0x1]) {
- trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c, TPS("Prestartedroot"));
- goto unlock_out;
- }
-
- /* Record the need for the future grace period. */
- rnp_root->need_future_gp[c & 0x1]++;
-
- /* If a grace period is not already in progress, start one. */
- if (rnp_root->gpnum != rnp_root->completed) {
- trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c, TPS("Startedleafroot"));
- } else {
- trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c, TPS("Startedroot"));
- ret = rcu_start_gp_advanced(rdp->rsp, rnp_root, rdp);
- }
-unlock_out:
- if (rnp != rnp_root)
- raw_spin_unlock(&rnp_root->lock);
+ /* rnp == rnp_root, we already hold the lock */
+ trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c, TPS("Startedroot"));
+ ret = rcu_start_gp_advanced(rdp->rsp, rnp, rdp);
out:
if (c_out != NULL)
*c_out = c;
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH 2/5] kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h:1494 fix a sparse warning
2014-06-11 20:39 ` [RFC PATCH 2/5] kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h:1494 " Pranith Kumar
@ 2014-06-26 19:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2014-06-26 19:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pranith Kumar; +Cc: linux-kernel, Josh Triplett
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 04:39:40PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h:1494:13: warning: context imbalance in 'rcu_initiate_boost' - unexpected unlock
>
> by annotating the function with releases()
>
> Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
Hearing no objections, I have queued this for 3.17.
Thanx, Paul
> ---
> kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> index cbc2c45..0c955d9 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> @@ -1256,6 +1256,7 @@ static int rcu_boost_kthread(void *arg)
> * about it going away.
> */
> static void rcu_initiate_boost(struct rcu_node *rnp, unsigned long flags)
> + __releases(rnp->lock)
> {
> struct task_struct *t;
>
> @@ -1491,6 +1492,7 @@ static void rcu_prepare_kthreads(int cpu)
> #else /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
>
> static void rcu_initiate_boost(struct rcu_node *rnp, unsigned long flags)
> + __releases(rnp->lock)
> {
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> }
> --
> 1.9.1
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH 3/5] kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h:990 fix a sparse warning
2014-06-11 20:39 ` [RFC PATCH 3/5] kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h:990 " Pranith Kumar
@ 2014-06-26 19:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2014-06-26 19:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pranith Kumar; +Cc: linux-kernel, Josh Triplett
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 04:39:41PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h:990:13: warning: context imbalance in 'rcu_report_unblock_qs_rnp' - unexpected unlock
>
> by annotating the function with __releases()
>
> Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
Hearing no objections, I have queued this for 3.17.
Thanx, Paul
> ---
> kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> index 0c955d9..9f85469 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> @@ -988,6 +988,7 @@ static int rcu_preempt_blocked_readers_cgp(struct rcu_node *rnp)
>
> /* Because preemptible RCU does not exist, no quieting of tasks. */
> static void rcu_report_unblock_qs_rnp(struct rcu_node *rnp, unsigned long flags)
> + __releases(rnp->lock)
> {
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> }
> --
> 1.9.1
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c:185 fix a sparse warning
2014-06-11 21:47 ` josh
@ 2014-07-08 22:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-08 22:46 ` Pranith Kumar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2014-07-08 22:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: josh; +Cc: Pranith Kumar, linux-kernel
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 02:47:52PM -0700, josh@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 04:39:43PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> > fix the following sparse warning
> >
> > kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c:185:1: warning: symbol 'boost_mutex' was not declared. Should it be static?
> >
> > by marking boost_mutex as a static mutex
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
>
> Please preserve the comment alignment (by deleting a tab). With that
> fixed:
> Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Queued for 3.18.
But Pranith, next time Josh gives you a review comment, could you please
respond with the appropriate update?
Thanx, Paul
> > kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c
> > index 7fa34f8..1cd4b2d 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c
> > @@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ static u64 notrace rcu_trace_clock_local(void)
> > #endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_TRACE */
> >
> > static unsigned long boost_starttime; /* jiffies of next boost test start. */
> > -DEFINE_MUTEX(boost_mutex); /* protect setting boost_starttime */
> > +static DEFINE_MUTEX(boost_mutex); /* protect setting boost_starttime */
> > /* and boost task create/destroy. */
> > static atomic_t barrier_cbs_count; /* Barrier callbacks registered. */
> > static bool barrier_phase; /* Test phase. */
> > --
> > 1.9.1
> >
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c:185 fix a sparse warning
2014-07-08 22:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
@ 2014-07-08 22:46 ` Pranith Kumar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Pranith Kumar @ 2014-07-08 22:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul McKenney; +Cc: Josh Triplett, LKML
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 02:47:52PM -0700, josh@joshtriplett.org wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 04:39:43PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
>> > fix the following sparse warning
>> >
>> > kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c:185:1: warning: symbol 'boost_mutex' was not declared. Should it be static?
>> >
>> > by marking boost_mutex as a static mutex
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
>>
>> Please preserve the comment alignment (by deleting a tab). With that
>> fixed:
>> Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
>
> Queued for 3.18.
>
> But Pranith, next time Josh gives you a review comment, could you please
> respond with the appropriate update?
>
I was away from my work desktop for the past few days. I actually sent
a fixed patch 10 min ago, but in a new series.
Sorry for missing this, I will drop an update promptly next time.
--
Pranith
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-07-08 22:47 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-06-11 20:39 [RFC PATCH 0/5] rcu: fix sparse warnings Pranith Kumar
2014-06-11 20:39 ` [RFC PATCH 1/5] kernel/rcu/tree.c:1272 fix a sparse warning Pranith Kumar
2014-06-12 23:16 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-13 4:54 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-06-13 5:52 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-06-11 20:39 ` [RFC PATCH 2/5] kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h:1494 " Pranith Kumar
2014-06-26 19:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-11 20:39 ` [RFC PATCH 3/5] kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h:990 " Pranith Kumar
2014-06-26 19:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-11 20:39 ` [RFC PATCH 4/5] kernel/rcu/tree.c:3435 " Pranith Kumar
2014-06-11 21:25 ` josh
2014-06-12 1:37 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-06-11 20:39 ` [RFC PATCH 5/5] kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c:185 " Pranith Kumar
2014-06-11 21:47 ` josh
2014-07-08 22:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-08 22:46 ` Pranith Kumar
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.