On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 12:27:02PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 05:57:53PM +0800, Nicolas Iooss wrote:
> > Commit 11bbb235c26f ("rcu: Use DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED for
> > rcu_data") replaced DEFINE_PER_CPU by DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED in
> > the definition of rcu_sched and rcu_bh without updating
> > kernel/rcu/tree.h.
> >
> > This makes clang report a section mismatch (-Wsection warning) when
> > building LLVMLinux because the variables are declared in .data..percpu
> > but defined in .data..percpu..shared_aligned.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Iooss <nicolas.iooss_li...@m4x.org>
>
> Good catch.
> Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <j...@joshtriplett.org>
Agreed, good catch! But don't we also need to worry about
rcu_preempt_data? Also, given that tree_trace.c now uses iterators
rather than direct access via the per-CPU variables, wouldn't the
following be more appropriate? (-Very- lightly tested.)
Thanx, Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.h b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
index da9f6adb5ff9..ee86870b1825 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
@@ -537,17 +537,6 @@ extern struct list_head rcu_struct_flavors;
/*
* RCU implementation internal declarations:
*/
-extern struct rcu_state rcu_sched_state;
-DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct rcu_data, rcu_sched_data);
-
-extern struct rcu_state rcu_bh_state;
-DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct rcu_data, rcu_bh_data);
-
-#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
-extern struct rcu_state rcu_preempt_state;
-DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct rcu_data, rcu_preempt_data);
-#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU */
-
#ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
DECLARE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, rcu_cpu_kthread_status);
DECLARE_PER_CPU(int, rcu_cpu_kthread_cpu);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
