[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] cpumask: alloc blank cpumask left over
Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 03:26:57 pm Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> Rusty Russell wrote:
>>> On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 06:31:31 am Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>> avoid suprise when MAXSMP is enabled
>>>> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <>
>>> I understand the temptation, but two questions arise:
>>> 1) Shouldn't we actually audit to see if any of these are currently
>>> problems,
>> those are defined as static cpumask_var_t, and if MAXSMP is not used, they
>> are cleared already
> OK, here's what I've got in my tree. Ingo, I think this should go in the
> current -rc to avoid nasty bugs.
> BTW, the original alloc_cpumask_var did zero; that was dropped after arguments
> over efficiency and fitting with other interfaces, but I clearly had the old
> semantics in my head for a while.

Using __GFP_ZERO is equivalent to using memset() instead of
cpumask_clear(). It's better to call cpumask_clear() or provide an API
to alloc+clear.

Further, what about the non-MAXSMP case:

static inline bool alloc_cpumask_var(cpumask_var_t *mask, gfp_t flags)
return true;

We explicity clear on MAXSMP and rely on static initialization for the
non-MAXSMP, laying a neat trap for anyone who makes the variable
non-static. Let's be less subtle that that.

I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-06 11:27    [W:0.135 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site