* kprobes: get rid of distinct type warning
@ 2009-12-21 10:15 Heiko Carstens
2009-12-21 11:17 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Heiko Carstens @ 2009-12-21 10:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ingo Molnar, Andrew Morton; +Cc: linux-kernel, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Every time I see this:
kernel/kprobes.c: In function 'register_kretprobe':
kernel/kprobes.c:1038: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast
I'm wondering if something changed in common code and we need to do
something for s390. Apparently that's not the case.
Let's get rid of this annoying warning.
Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
---
kernel/kprobes.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/kernel/kprobes.c
+++ b/kernel/kprobes.c
@@ -1035,7 +1035,7 @@ int __kprobes register_kretprobe(struct
/* Pre-allocate memory for max kretprobe instances */
if (rp->maxactive <= 0) {
#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
- rp->maxactive = max(10, 2 * num_possible_cpus());
+ rp->maxactive = max(10U, 2 * num_possible_cpus());
#else
rp->maxactive = num_possible_cpus();
#endif
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: kprobes: get rid of distinct type warning
2009-12-21 10:15 kprobes: get rid of distinct type warning Heiko Carstens
@ 2009-12-21 11:17 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2009-12-21 12:02 ` Heiko Carstens
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli @ 2009-12-21 11:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Heiko Carstens; +Cc: Ingo Molnar, Andrew Morton, linux-kernel
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:15:49AM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
>
> Every time I see this:
>
> kernel/kprobes.c: In function 'register_kretprobe':
> kernel/kprobes.c:1038: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast
>
> I'm wondering if something changed in common code and we need to do
> something for s390. Apparently that's not the case.
> Let's get rid of this annoying warning.
>
> Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>
Thanks Heiko. I'd tested this on x86 and powerpc and neither throws the
warning. No wonder I missed it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: kprobes: get rid of distinct type warning
2009-12-21 11:17 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
@ 2009-12-21 12:02 ` Heiko Carstens
2009-12-28 10:08 ` [tip:perf/urgent] kprobes: Fix " tip-bot for Heiko Carstens
2009-12-30 21:29 ` kprobes: get rid of " Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Heiko Carstens @ 2009-12-21 12:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli; +Cc: Ingo Molnar, Andrew Morton, linux-kernel
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 04:47:59PM +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:15:49AM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
> >
> > Every time I see this:
> >
> > kernel/kprobes.c: In function 'register_kretprobe':
> > kernel/kprobes.c:1038: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast
> >
> > I'm wondering if something changed in common code and we need to do
> > something for s390. Apparently that's not the case.
> > Let's get rid of this annoying warning.
> >
> > Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
>
> Acked-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>
>
> Thanks Heiko. I'd tested this on x86 and powerpc and neither throws the
> warning. No wonder I missed it.
Of course the patch wouldn't help for CONFIG_PREEMPT and !CONFIG_SMP since
we would have a comparison of a signed and and unsigned value again *sigh*.
So here's an updated version that should always work:
Subject: [PATCH] kprobes: get rid of distinct type warning
From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Every time I see this:
kernel/kprobes.c: In function 'register_kretprobe':
kernel/kprobes.c:1038: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast
I'm wondering if something changed in common code and we need to do
something for s390. Apparently that's not the case.
Let's get rid of this annoying warning.
Acked-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
---
kernel/kprobes.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/kernel/kprobes.c
+++ b/kernel/kprobes.c
@@ -1035,7 +1035,7 @@ int __kprobes register_kretprobe(struct
/* Pre-allocate memory for max kretprobe instances */
if (rp->maxactive <= 0) {
#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
- rp->maxactive = max(10, 2 * num_possible_cpus());
+ rp->maxactive = max_t(unsigned int, 10, 2*num_possible_cpus());
#else
rp->maxactive = num_possible_cpus();
#endif
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [tip:perf/urgent] kprobes: Fix distinct type warning
2009-12-21 12:02 ` Heiko Carstens
@ 2009-12-28 10:08 ` tip-bot for Heiko Carstens
2009-12-30 21:29 ` kprobes: get rid of " Andrew Morton
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: tip-bot for Heiko Carstens @ 2009-12-28 10:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-tip-commits
Cc: linux-kernel, ananth, hpa, mingo, heiko.carstens, tglx, mhiramat, mingo
Commit-ID: c2ef6661ce62e26a8c0978e521fab646128a144b
Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/c2ef6661ce62e26a8c0978e521fab646128a144b
Author: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
AuthorDate: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:02:24 +0100
Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
CommitDate: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:25:31 +0100
kprobes: Fix distinct type warning
Every time I see this:
kernel/kprobes.c: In function 'register_kretprobe':
kernel/kprobes.c:1038: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast
I'm wondering if something changed in common code and we need to
do something for s390. Apparently that's not the case.
Let's get rid of this annoying warning.
Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@redhat.com>
LKML-Reference: <20091221120224.GA4471@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
---
kernel/kprobes.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/kprobes.c b/kernel/kprobes.c
index e5342a3..b7df302 100644
--- a/kernel/kprobes.c
+++ b/kernel/kprobes.c
@@ -1035,7 +1035,7 @@ int __kprobes register_kretprobe(struct kretprobe *rp)
/* Pre-allocate memory for max kretprobe instances */
if (rp->maxactive <= 0) {
#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
- rp->maxactive = max(10, 2 * num_possible_cpus());
+ rp->maxactive = max_t(unsigned int, 10, 2*num_possible_cpus());
#else
rp->maxactive = num_possible_cpus();
#endif
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: kprobes: get rid of distinct type warning
2009-12-21 12:02 ` Heiko Carstens
2009-12-28 10:08 ` [tip:perf/urgent] kprobes: Fix " tip-bot for Heiko Carstens
@ 2009-12-30 21:29 ` Andrew Morton
2010-01-04 15:57 ` Heiko Carstens
1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2009-12-30 21:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Heiko Carstens; +Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli, Ingo Molnar, linux-kernel
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:02:24 +0100
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> Of course the patch wouldn't help for CONFIG_PREEMPT and !CONFIG_SMP since
> we would have a comparison of a signed and and unsigned value again *sigh*.
We should fix that, shouldn't we? Rather than working around it at one
caller site.
: #if NR_CPUS > 1
: #define num_online_cpus() cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask)
: #define num_possible_cpus() cpumask_weight(cpu_possible_mask)
: #define num_present_cpus() cpumask_weight(cpu_present_mask)
: #define num_active_cpus() cpumask_weight(cpu_active_mask)
: #define cpu_online(cpu) cpumask_test_cpu((cpu), cpu_online_mask)
: #define cpu_possible(cpu) cpumask_test_cpu((cpu), cpu_possible_mask)
: #define cpu_present(cpu) cpumask_test_cpu((cpu), cpu_present_mask)
: #define cpu_active(cpu) cpumask_test_cpu((cpu), cpu_active_mask)
: #else
: #define num_online_cpus() 1
: #define num_possible_cpus() 1
: #define num_present_cpus() 1
: #define num_active_cpus() 1
: #define cpu_online(cpu) ((cpu) == 0)
: #define cpu_possible(cpu) ((cpu) == 0)
: #define cpu_present(cpu) ((cpu) == 0)
: #define cpu_active(cpu) ((cpu) == 0)
: #endif
The num_*() "functions" return unsigned on SMP and int on UP. This is
wrong.
The cpu_*() "functions" got lucky and return int in both cases.
Personally I think it's neatest if a quantity which can never be
negative is held in an unsigned type. Than includes anything starting
with "num". But for expediency's sake we could live with making these
things consistently return "int".
Alas, changing those four num_*() "functions" to return int on SMP is a
pretty wide-reaching change and will probably expose warts.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: kprobes: get rid of distinct type warning
2009-12-30 21:29 ` kprobes: get rid of " Andrew Morton
@ 2010-01-04 15:57 ` Heiko Carstens
2010-01-04 22:45 ` Rusty Russell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Heiko Carstens @ 2010-01-04 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton
Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli, Ingo Molnar, linux-kernel, Rusty Russell
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 01:29:45PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:02:24 +0100
> Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course the patch wouldn't help for CONFIG_PREEMPT and !CONFIG_SMP since
> > we would have a comparison of a signed and and unsigned value again *sigh*.
>
> We should fix that, shouldn't we? Rather than working around it at one
> caller site.
>
> : #if NR_CPUS > 1
> : #define num_online_cpus() cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask)
> : #define num_possible_cpus() cpumask_weight(cpu_possible_mask)
> : #define num_present_cpus() cpumask_weight(cpu_present_mask)
> : #define num_active_cpus() cpumask_weight(cpu_active_mask)
> : #define cpu_online(cpu) cpumask_test_cpu((cpu), cpu_online_mask)
> : #define cpu_possible(cpu) cpumask_test_cpu((cpu), cpu_possible_mask)
> : #define cpu_present(cpu) cpumask_test_cpu((cpu), cpu_present_mask)
> : #define cpu_active(cpu) cpumask_test_cpu((cpu), cpu_active_mask)
> : #else
> : #define num_online_cpus() 1
> : #define num_possible_cpus() 1
> : #define num_present_cpus() 1
> : #define num_active_cpus() 1
> : #define cpu_online(cpu) ((cpu) == 0)
> : #define cpu_possible(cpu) ((cpu) == 0)
> : #define cpu_present(cpu) ((cpu) == 0)
> : #define cpu_active(cpu) ((cpu) == 0)
> : #endif
>
> The num_*() "functions" return unsigned on SMP and int on UP. This is
> wrong.
>
> The cpu_*() "functions" got lucky and return int in both cases.
>
> Personally I think it's neatest if a quantity which can never be
> negative is held in an unsigned type. Than includes anything starting
> with "num". But for expediency's sake we could live with making these
> things consistently return "int".
>
> Alas, changing those four num_*() "functions" to return int on SMP is a
> pretty wide-reaching change and will probably expose warts.
Looks like there are quite a lot of num_* function usages in the kernel.
Some seem to assume they return an int some assume an unsigned int.
Don't know if it's worth changing anything here.
Maybe Rusty has an opinion.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: kprobes: get rid of distinct type warning
2010-01-04 15:57 ` Heiko Carstens
@ 2010-01-04 22:45 ` Rusty Russell
2010-01-05 8:40 ` Heiko Carstens
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Rusty Russell @ 2010-01-04 22:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Heiko Carstens
Cc: Andrew Morton, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli, Ingo Molnar, linux-kernel
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 02:27:02 am Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 01:29:45PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:02:24 +0100
> > Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Of course the patch wouldn't help for CONFIG_PREEMPT and !CONFIG_SMP since
> > > we would have a comparison of a signed and and unsigned value again *sigh*.
> >
> > We should fix that, shouldn't we? Rather than working around it at one
> > caller site.
> >
> > : #if NR_CPUS > 1
> > : #define num_online_cpus() cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask)
> > : #define num_possible_cpus() cpumask_weight(cpu_possible_mask)
> > : #define num_present_cpus() cpumask_weight(cpu_present_mask)
> > : #define num_active_cpus() cpumask_weight(cpu_active_mask)
> > : #define cpu_online(cpu) cpumask_test_cpu((cpu), cpu_online_mask)
> > : #define cpu_possible(cpu) cpumask_test_cpu((cpu), cpu_possible_mask)
> > : #define cpu_present(cpu) cpumask_test_cpu((cpu), cpu_present_mask)
> > : #define cpu_active(cpu) cpumask_test_cpu((cpu), cpu_active_mask)
> > : #else
> > : #define num_online_cpus() 1
> > : #define num_possible_cpus() 1
> > : #define num_present_cpus() 1
> > : #define num_active_cpus() 1
> > : #define cpu_online(cpu) ((cpu) == 0)
> > : #define cpu_possible(cpu) ((cpu) == 0)
> > : #define cpu_present(cpu) ((cpu) == 0)
> > : #define cpu_active(cpu) ((cpu) == 0)
> > : #endif
> >
> > The num_*() "functions" return unsigned on SMP and int on UP. This is
> > wrong.
> >
> > The cpu_*() "functions" got lucky and return int in both cases.
> >
> > Personally I think it's neatest if a quantity which can never be
> > negative is held in an unsigned type. Than includes anything starting
> > with "num". But for expediency's sake we could live with making these
> > things consistently return "int".
> >
> > Alas, changing those four num_*() "functions" to return int on SMP is a
> > pretty wide-reaching change and will probably expose warts.
>
> Looks like there are quite a lot of num_* function usages in the kernel.
> Some seem to assume they return an int some assume an unsigned int.
> Don't know if it's worth changing anything here.
> Maybe Rusty has an opinion.
If we have to go one way or the other, go with unsigned.
What does such a patch look like?
Thanks,
Rusty.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: kprobes: get rid of distinct type warning
2010-01-04 22:45 ` Rusty Russell
@ 2010-01-05 8:40 ` Heiko Carstens
2010-01-09 0:18 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Heiko Carstens @ 2010-01-05 8:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rusty Russell
Cc: Andrew Morton, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli, Ingo Molnar, linux-kernel
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 09:15:41AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 02:27:02 am Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 01:29:45PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > The num_*() "functions" return unsigned on SMP and int on UP. This is
> > > wrong.
> > >
> > > The cpu_*() "functions" got lucky and return int in both cases.
> > >
> > > Personally I think it's neatest if a quantity which can never be
> > > negative is held in an unsigned type. Than includes anything starting
> > > with "num". But for expediency's sake we could live with making these
> > > things consistently return "int".
> > >
> > > Alas, changing those four num_*() "functions" to return int on SMP is a
> > > pretty wide-reaching change and will probably expose warts.
> >
> > Looks like there are quite a lot of num_* function usages in the kernel.
> > Some seem to assume they return an int some assume an unsigned int.
> > Don't know if it's worth changing anything here.
> > Maybe Rusty has an opinion.
>
> If we have to go one way or the other, go with unsigned.
>
> What does such a patch look like?
Something like this, doesn't even trigger new warnings on an !SMP defconfig
build:
Subject: [PATCH] cpumask: let num_*_cpus() function always return unsigned values
From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Dependent on CONFIG_SMP the num_*_cpus() functions return unsigned or
signed values.
Let them always return unsigned values to avoid strange casts.
Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
---
include/linux/cpumask.h | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
--- a/include/linux/cpumask.h
+++ b/include/linux/cpumask.h
@@ -90,10 +90,10 @@ extern const struct cpumask *const cpu_a
#define cpu_present(cpu) cpumask_test_cpu((cpu), cpu_present_mask)
#define cpu_active(cpu) cpumask_test_cpu((cpu), cpu_active_mask)
#else
-#define num_online_cpus() 1
-#define num_possible_cpus() 1
-#define num_present_cpus() 1
-#define num_active_cpus() 1
+#define num_online_cpus() 1U
+#define num_possible_cpus() 1U
+#define num_present_cpus() 1U
+#define num_active_cpus() 1U
#define cpu_online(cpu) ((cpu) == 0)
#define cpu_possible(cpu) ((cpu) == 0)
#define cpu_present(cpu) ((cpu) == 0)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: kprobes: get rid of distinct type warning
2010-01-05 8:40 ` Heiko Carstens
@ 2010-01-09 0:18 ` Andrew Morton
2010-01-09 17:45 ` Heiko Carstens
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2010-01-09 0:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Heiko Carstens
Cc: Rusty Russell, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli, Ingo Molnar, linux-kernel
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 09:40:27 +0100
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 09:15:41AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 02:27:02 am Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 01:29:45PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > The num_*() "functions" return unsigned on SMP and int on UP. This is
> > > > wrong.
> > > >
> > > > The cpu_*() "functions" got lucky and return int in both cases.
> > > >
> > > > Personally I think it's neatest if a quantity which can never be
> > > > negative is held in an unsigned type. Than includes anything starting
> > > > with "num". But for expediency's sake we could live with making these
> > > > things consistently return "int".
> > > >
> > > > Alas, changing those four num_*() "functions" to return int on SMP is a
> > > > pretty wide-reaching change and will probably expose warts.
> > >
> > > Looks like there are quite a lot of num_* function usages in the kernel.
> > > Some seem to assume they return an int some assume an unsigned int.
> > > Don't know if it's worth changing anything here.
> > > Maybe Rusty has an opinion.
> >
> > If we have to go one way or the other, go with unsigned.
> >
> > What does such a patch look like?
>
> Something like this, doesn't even trigger new warnings on an !SMP defconfig
> build:
>
> Subject: [PATCH] cpumask: let num_*_cpus() function always return unsigned values
>
> From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
>
> Dependent on CONFIG_SMP the num_*_cpus() functions return unsigned or
> signed values.
> Let them always return unsigned values to avoid strange casts.
>
> Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
> ---
> include/linux/cpumask.h | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/include/linux/cpumask.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cpumask.h
> @@ -90,10 +90,10 @@ extern const struct cpumask *const cpu_a
> #define cpu_present(cpu) cpumask_test_cpu((cpu), cpu_present_mask)
> #define cpu_active(cpu) cpumask_test_cpu((cpu), cpu_active_mask)
> #else
> -#define num_online_cpus() 1
> -#define num_possible_cpus() 1
> -#define num_present_cpus() 1
> -#define num_active_cpus() 1
> +#define num_online_cpus() 1U
> +#define num_possible_cpus() 1U
> +#define num_present_cpus() 1U
> +#define num_active_cpus() 1U
> #define cpu_online(cpu) ((cpu) == 0)
> #define cpu_possible(cpu) ((cpu) == 0)
> #define cpu_present(cpu) ((cpu) == 0)
I assume that this fixes the kprobes warning, so
Commit-ID: c2ef6661ce62e26a8c0978e521fab646128a144b
Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/c2ef6661ce62e26a8c0978e521fab646128a144b
Author: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
AuthorDate: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:02:24 +0100
Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
CommitDate: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:25:31 +0100
becomes unneeded?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: kprobes: get rid of distinct type warning
2010-01-09 0:18 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2010-01-09 17:45 ` Heiko Carstens
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Heiko Carstens @ 2010-01-09 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton
Cc: Rusty Russell, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli, Ingo Molnar, linux-kernel
On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 04:18:48PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 09:40:27 +0100
> Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> > --- a/include/linux/cpumask.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/cpumask.h
> > @@ -90,10 +90,10 @@ extern const struct cpumask *const cpu_a
> > #define cpu_present(cpu) cpumask_test_cpu((cpu), cpu_present_mask)
> > #define cpu_active(cpu) cpumask_test_cpu((cpu), cpu_active_mask)
> > #else
> > -#define num_online_cpus() 1
> > -#define num_possible_cpus() 1
> > -#define num_present_cpus() 1
> > -#define num_active_cpus() 1
> > +#define num_online_cpus() 1U
> > +#define num_possible_cpus() 1U
> > +#define num_present_cpus() 1U
> > +#define num_active_cpus() 1U
> > #define cpu_online(cpu) ((cpu) == 0)
> > #define cpu_possible(cpu) ((cpu) == 0)
> > #define cpu_present(cpu) ((cpu) == 0)
>
> I assume that this fixes the kprobes warning, so
>
> Commit-ID: c2ef6661ce62e26a8c0978e521fab646128a144b
> Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/c2ef6661ce62e26a8c0978e521fab646128a144b
> Author: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
> AuthorDate: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:02:24 +0100
> Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> CommitDate: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:25:31 +0100
>
> becomes unneeded?
Nah, that would be too easy. The code still compares an int (10) and
an unsigned int. The only thing that could be changed with this patch
is that max_t isn't needed anymore, so that the patch below would
work as well (10U).
But I don't think it's worth it.
diff --git a/kernel/kprobes.c b/kernel/kprobes.c
index b7df302..85222a9 100644
--- a/kernel/kprobes.c
+++ b/kernel/kprobes.c
@@ -1035,7 +1035,7 @@ int __kprobes register_kretprobe(struct kretprobe *rp)
/* Pre-allocate memory for max kretprobe instances */
if (rp->maxactive <= 0) {
#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
- rp->maxactive = max_t(unsigned int, 10, 2*num_possible_cpus());
+ rp->maxactive = max(10U, 2*num_possible_cpus());
#else
rp->maxactive = num_possible_cpus();
#endif
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-01-09 17:45 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-12-21 10:15 kprobes: get rid of distinct type warning Heiko Carstens
2009-12-21 11:17 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2009-12-21 12:02 ` Heiko Carstens
2009-12-28 10:08 ` [tip:perf/urgent] kprobes: Fix " tip-bot for Heiko Carstens
2009-12-30 21:29 ` kprobes: get rid of " Andrew Morton
2010-01-04 15:57 ` Heiko Carstens
2010-01-04 22:45 ` Rusty Russell
2010-01-05 8:40 ` Heiko Carstens
2010-01-09 0:18 ` Andrew Morton
2010-01-09 17:45 ` Heiko Carstens
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).