lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCHSET] percpu: add __percpu sparse annotations
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:22:07AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> This patchset adds __percpu sparse annotations to all percpu users
> covered by x86_64 allmodconfig. __percpu annotation teaches sparse
> that percpu variables live in a separate address space and can't be
> accessed directly without going through percpu accessors. This allows
> detection of most percpu access mistakes involving both static and
> dyanmic percpu variables.
>
> This patchset contains the following eight patches.
>
> 0001-percpu-add-__percpu-sparse-annotations-to-core-kerne.patch
> 0002-percpu-add-__percpu-sparse-annotations-to-fs.patch
> 0003-percpu-add-__percpu-sparse-annotations-to-net.patch
> 0004-percpu-add-__percpu-sparse-annotations-to-net-driver.patch
> 0005-percpu-add-__percpu-sparse-annotations-to-x86.patch
> 0006-percpu-add-__percpu-sparse-annotations-to-trace.patch
> 0007-percpu-add-__percpu-sparse-annotations-to-hw_breakpo.patch
> 0008-percpu-add-__percpu-sparse-annotations-to-what-s-lef.patch
>
> As these annotations are for sparse, none of the above patches affects
> normal kernel build and most of the conversions are straight-forward
> and trivial. There are a few places where the conversion isn't
> completely straight-forward (but still fairly trivial). Those are
> mentioned in each patch description.
>
> I can route the patch through percpu and conflict resolution, if
> necessary, wouldn't be difficult at all for these changes. If anyone
> wants to route one of these patches through a different tree, please
> let me know. All that's necessary would be adding dummy __percpu
> definition to the patch.
>
> If nobody objects, I'll push these into percpu tree in three or four
> days.

Um. Where *is* the definition of __percpu? Presumably, that'd be
something like __attribute__((noderef,address_space(4)) under ifdef
__CHECKER__ and empty otherwise? If so, I'm fine with that patchset,
provided that it does grow that #define and becomes self-contained...


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-01-26 00:17    [W:0.139 / U:0.560 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site