Re: [tip:perf/uprobes] uprobes/core: Clean up, refactor and improve the code
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: [tip:perf/uprobes] uprobes/core: Clean up, refactor and improve the code
- From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:38:23 +0100
- Cc: mingo@xxxxxxxxxx, hpa@xxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jkenisto@xxxxxxxxxx, a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx, ananth@xxxxxxxxxx, anton@xxxxxxxxxx, masami.hiramatsu.pt@xxxxxxxxxxx, acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, oleg@xxxxxxxxxx, tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Josh Stone <jistone@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-tip-commits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <20120220060825.GA22680@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
* Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The volatiles were added to arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c because
> of commit 7115e3fcf45 and 315eb8a2a1b. The volatiles are
> required because gcc 4.6 gave a warning about the asm operand
> for test_bit. So the same were added to
> arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c.
Seems like a GCC bug - a bogus warning - or does it generate bad
code as well?
In any case, kprobes.c did it correctly, it added the volatile
*and a comment*, pointing out that it's a GCC bug. No such
warning was added to uprobes.c, making the volatile look
entirely spurious.
So feel free to re-add the volatile in a followup patch, just
make sure the GCC workaround nature is documented.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Index of Archives]
[Linux Stable Commits]
[Linux Stable Kernel]
[Linux Kernel]
[Linux USB Devel]
[Linux Video &Media]
[Linux Audio Users]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]