Re: initialization of static per-cpu variables

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Vegard Nossum
Date: Friday, May 23, 2008 - 7:43 am

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote:

Ah, thanks for looking that up!

The question is then whether 3.1/3.2 will _ever_ do the right thing,
when you consider the number of places in the kernel that *don't*
initialize static per-cpu variables. (Or maybe: What makes this
variable so special that it breaks the kernel?)

Maybe it was fixed by accident in the kernel at some point later (e.g.
by change of the linker script) or maybe the commit message/original
reason was wrong and it was really something else?

Or maybe it is time to deprecate gcc 3.1/3.2 support?

Vegard

-- 
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
	-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
initialization of static per-cpu variables, Vegard Nossum, (Wed May 21, 11:28 am)
Re: initialization of static per-cpu variables, Rusty Russell, (Thu May 22, 1:20 am)
Re: initialization of static per-cpu variables, David Miller, (Thu May 22, 9:12 am)
Re: initialization of static per-cpu variables, Adrian Bunk, (Fri May 23, 7:29 am)
Re: initialization of static per-cpu variables, Vegard Nossum, (Fri May 23, 7:43 am)
Re: initialization of static per-cpu variables, Rusty Russell, (Sun May 25, 3:35 am)
Re: initialization of static per-cpu variables, Adrian Bunk, (Mon Jun 2, 12:59 am)
Re: initialization of static per-cpu variables, Rusty Russell, (Mon Jun 2, 4:11 pm)