Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:05:16 -0700 | From | Mike Travis <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86: Change _node_to_cpumask_ptr to return const ptr |
| |
Vegard Nossum wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com> wrote: >>> (v3 is applied already so Mike please send a delta to v3.) >>> >>> Ingo >> Subject: [PATCH 1/1] x86: Change _node_to_cpumask_ptr to return const ptr >> >> * Strengthen the return type for the _node_to_cpumask_ptr to be >> a const pointer. This adds compiler checking to insure that >> node_to_cpumask_map[] is not changed inadvertently. >> >> Applies to tip/master with the following patch applied: >> >> "[PATCH 1/1] x86: Add check for node passed to node_to_cpumask V3" >> >> Signed-off-by: Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com> >> --- >> Note: I did not change node_to_cpumask_ptr() in include/asm-generic/topology.h >> as node_to_cpumask_ptr_next() does change the cpumask value. > > Hmmm. Does it really? > > #define node_to_cpumask_ptr_next(v, node) \ > _##v = node_to_cpumask(node) > > This doesn't seem to modify it?
Well I thought about it. The pointer (*v) does not change but the underlying cpumask variable is updated with the cpumask for the (supposedly) new node number. You can see that in this code snippet from kernel/sched.c:
for (i = 1; i < SD_NODES_PER_DOMAIN; i++) { int next_node = find_next_best_node(node, &used_nodes);
node_to_cpumask_ptr_next(nodemask, next_node); cpus_or(*span, *span, *nodemask); }
In the optimized (x86_64) case, the pointer is simply modified to point to the new node_to_cpumask_map[node] entry. It remains a pointer to a const value.
But the non-optimized version replaces the const cpumask value with the new cpumask value. Isn't this breaking the const attribute?
> > Also, isn't it unfortunate to have the same function return > const/non-const depending on your arch/config?
But isn't that exactly what it does? (And in reality, the real protection happens when there is a node_to_cpumask_map[] present.)
But whichever seems more correct is fine with me... ;-)
Thanks, Mike
| |