On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 04:27:07PM -0500, Josh Cartwright wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 06:52:49PM +0200, Henrik Austad wrote:
> > Code will snould not call numa_available(), but compiler will complain
>
> snould -> should.
>
> Why should it not call it?
Because if numa is 0, it will stop evaluating the conditional and never get
to numa_available()
if (numa && (numa_available() == -1))
fatal("--numa specified and numa functions not available.\n");
Even so, the compiler will try to find the symbol, which it couldn't. So
the warning was legit, but the problem would never arise in practice (as
you state below).
> > with:
> >
> > src/cyclictest/rt_numa.h:263: warning: implicit declaration of function ???numa_available???
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Henrik Austad <haustad@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > src/cyclictest/rt_numa.h | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/src/cyclictest/rt_numa.h b/src/cyclictest/rt_numa.h
> > index 06c9420..172d9b2 100644
> > --- a/src/cyclictest/rt_numa.h
> > +++ b/src/cyclictest/rt_numa.h
> > @@ -200,6 +200,7 @@ struct bitmask {
> > };
> > #define BITS_PER_LONG (8*sizeof(long))
> >
> > +static inline int numa_available(void) { return 0; }
>
> I would have expected this to return -1, as libnuma isn't available...
Ah, you're right, should have been -1.
> John and I were talking about this earlier this week:
>
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/787515a5a59861a892ac3a44b6c6c502cfc102fd.1441038216.git.joshc@xxxxxx
I agree, that is a much better way of dealing with it!
Thanks!
--
Henrik Austad
TIPBU Eng
Cisco Systems Norway
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
