From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
Cc: john.stultz@linaro.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
cschan@codeaurora.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [tip:core/debugobjects] debugobjects: Be smarter about static objects
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 21:37:27 +0100 (CET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1112132127180.3020@ionos> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4EE7A946.9010909@codeaurora.org>
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>
> This code is only slightly confusing
Maybe we should tell that the guy who wrote it :)
> static int __init fixup_activate(void *addr, enum debug_obj_state state)
> {
> struct self_test *obj = addr;
>
> switch (state) {
> case ODEBUG_STATE_NOTAVAILABLE:
> if (obj->static_init == 1) {
> debug_object_init(obj, &descr_type_test);
> debug_object_activate(obj, &descr_type_test);
> /*
> * Real code should return 0 here ! This is
> * not a fixup of some bad behaviour. We
> * merily call the debug_init function to keep
> * track of the object.
> */
> return 1;
> } else {
> /* Real code needs to emit a warning here */
> }
> return 0;
>
>
> It seems that it does the complete opposite of what it should do, i.e.
> return 1 when the fixup is static and not actually a problem and return
> 0 otherwise. Because of this return 1, debug_object_activate() thinks
> there was a problem in the fixup and then it ups the warning count
> because this patch added a warning print for static objects.
Hmm, I think that was because I had not implemented that static
warning thing back then. So yes, it's backwards and should be fixed
proper:
> diff --git a/lib/debugobjects.c b/lib/debugobjects.c
> index 77cb245..0ab9ae8 100644
> --- a/lib/debugobjects.c
> +++ b/lib/debugobjects.c
> @@ -818,17 +818,9 @@ static int __init fixup_activate(void *addr, enum debug_obj_state state)
> if (obj->static_init == 1) {
> debug_object_init(obj, &descr_type_test);
> debug_object_activate(obj, &descr_type_test);
> - /*
> - * Real code should return 0 here ! This is
> - * not a fixup of some bad behaviour. We
> - * merily call the debug_init function to keep
> - * track of the object.
> - */
> - return 1;
> - } else {
> - /* Real code needs to emit a warning here */
> + return 0;
> }
> - return 0;
> + return 1;
>
> case ODEBUG_STATE_ACTIVE:
> debug_object_deactivate(obj, &descr_type_test);
> @@ -967,7 +959,7 @@ static void __init debug_objects_selftest(void)
>
> obj.static_init = 1;
> debug_object_activate(&obj, &descr_type_test);
> - if (check_results(&obj, ODEBUG_STATE_ACTIVE, ++fixups, warnings))
> + if (check_results(&obj, ODEBUG_STATE_ACTIVE, fixups, warnings))
> goto out;
> debug_object_init(&obj, &descr_type_test);
> if (check_results(&obj, ODEBUG_STATE_INIT, ++fixups, ++warnings))
>
>
>
> This would make the fixup function for a static NOTAVAILABLE object
> return 0 and 1 appropriately and corrects the fixup and warning checking
> to reflect that nothing was in need of fixing.
Yes, the other thing works, but is butt ugly.
> Why was the fixup for selftest inverted?
See above plus laziness I assume :)
Can you please resend with a changelong ?
Thanks,
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-13 20:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-11-08 3:48 [PATCHv2 0/3] Catching del_timer_sync() on uninitialized timers Stephen Boyd
2011-11-08 3:48 ` [PATCHv2 1/3] debugobjects: Be smarter about static objects Stephen Boyd
2011-11-28 14:18 ` [tip:core/debugobjects] " tip-bot for Stephen Boyd
2011-12-13 10:38 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-12-13 19:36 ` Stephen Boyd
2011-12-13 20:37 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2011-12-14 4:59 ` [PATCH] debugobjects: Fix selftest for static warnings Stephen Boyd
2011-11-28 14:20 ` [tip:core/debugobjects] timer: Setup uninitialized timer with a stub callback tip-bot for Stephen Boyd
2011-11-08 3:48 ` [PATCHv2 2/3] debugobjects: Extend to assert that an object is initialized Stephen Boyd
2011-11-28 14:19 ` [tip:core/debugobjects] " tip-bot for Christine Chan
2011-11-08 3:48 ` [PATCHv2 3/3] kernel/timer.c: Use debugobjects to catch deletion of uninitialized timers Stephen Boyd
2011-11-28 14:21 ` [tip:core/debugobjects] timer: " tip-bot for Christine Chan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.LFD.2.02.1112132127180.3020@ionos \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cschan@codeaurora.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).