On 25/03/2021 08.42, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 01:42:41AM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>>> Actually, it looks like I can't select PREEMPT_DYNAMIC> and tweaking Kconfig
>>
>> Ah, there's no prompt on the "bool" line, so it doesn't show up. That
>> seems to be a mistake,
On Thu, 25 Mar 2021 at 08:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 01:42:41AM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> > > Actually, it looks like I can't select PREEMPT_DYNAMIC> and tweaking
> > > Kconfig
> >
> > Ah, there's no prompt on the "bool" line, so it doesn't show up. That
> >
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 01:42:41AM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> > Actually, it looks like I can't select PREEMPT_DYNAMIC> and tweaking Kconfig
>
> Ah, there's no prompt on the "bool" line, so it doesn't show up. That
> seems to be a mistake, since there's an elaborate help text which says
>
On 25/03/2021 00.40, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 3:53 PM Rasmus Villemoes
> wrote:
>>
>> On 24/03/2021 23.34, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 2:51 PM Rasmus Villemoes
>>> wrote:
On 24/03/2021 18.33, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 3:53 PM Rasmus Villemoes
wrote:
>
> On 24/03/2021 23.34, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 2:51 PM Rasmus Villemoes
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 24/03/2021 18.33, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 05:45:52PM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>
On 24/03/2021 23.34, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 2:51 PM Rasmus Villemoes
> wrote:
>>
>> On 24/03/2021 18.33, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 05:45:52PM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
Sorry, I think I misread the code. The static calls are indeed
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 2:51 PM Rasmus Villemoes
wrote:
>
> On 24/03/2021 18.33, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 05:45:52PM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> >> Sorry, I think I misread the code. The static calls are indeed
> >> initialized with a function with the right
On 24/03/2021 18.33, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 05:45:52PM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>> Sorry, I think I misread the code. The static calls are indeed
>> initialized with a function with the right prototype. Try adding
>> "preempt=full" on the command line so that we
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 06:33:39PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 05:45:52PM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> > Sorry, I think I misread the code. The static calls are indeed
> > initialized with a function with the right prototype. Try adding
> > "preempt=full" on the
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 05:45:52PM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> Sorry, I think I misread the code. The static calls are indeed
> initialized with a function with the right prototype. Try adding
> "preempt=full" on the command line so that we exercise these lines
>
>
On 24/03/2021 17.01, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 5:46 AM Rasmus Villemoes
> wrote:
>>
>> On 23/03/2021 08.47, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 05:29:21PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 22:18:17 +0100
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 5:46 AM Rasmus Villemoes
wrote:
>
> On 23/03/2021 08.47, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 05:29:21PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >> On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 22:18:17 +0100
> >> Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think the code works correctly on all
On 23/03/2021 08.47, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 05:29:21PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 22:18:17 +0100
>> Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>
>>> I think the code works correctly on all architectures we support because
>>> both 'int' and 'long' are returned in a
On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 05:29:21PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 22:18:17 +0100
> Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> > I think the code works correctly on all architectures we support because
> > both 'int' and 'long' are returned in a register with any unused bits
> > cleared.
> >
On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 10:18:17PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > Steve is correct. Also, why is that warning correct? On x86 we return in
> > RAX, and using int will simply not inspect the upper 32 bits there.
>
> I think the code works correctly on all architectures we support because
> both
On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 22:18:17 +0100
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> I think the code works correctly on all architectures we support because
> both 'int' and 'long' are returned in a register with any unused bits cleared.
> It is however undefined behavior in C because 'int' and 'long' are not
>
On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 9:47 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 03:32:14PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 18:06:37 +0100
> > Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >
> > > From: Arnd Bergmann
> > >
> > > The __static_call_return0() function is declared to return a 'long',
On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 03:32:14PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 18:06:37 +0100
> Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> > From: Arnd Bergmann
> >
> > The __static_call_return0() function is declared to return a 'long',
> > while it aliases a couple of functions that all return 'int'.
On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 18:06:37 +0100
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann
>
> The __static_call_return0() function is declared to return a 'long',
> while it aliases a couple of functions that all return 'int'. When
> building with 'make W=1', gcc warns about this:
>
>
From: Arnd Bergmann
The __static_call_return0() function is declared to return a 'long',
while it aliases a couple of functions that all return 'int'. When
building with 'make W=1', gcc warns about this:
kernel/sched/core.c:5420:37: error: cast between incompatible function types
from 'long
20 matches
Mail list logo
