Re: [GIT PULL] scheduler fixes

[Ingo Molnar]

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, 18 May 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > Rusty Russell (1):
> >       sched: avoid flexible array member inside struct (gcc extension)
> 
> I'm not pulling this one either.
> 
> It makes no sense what-so-ever. It's uglier code, so calling it a 
> cleanup is just wrong.

hm - i've Cc:-ed Jeff & Viro. The background is that Sparse and LLVM 
barfed on the current construct and Al strongly advocated this 
solution, see:

  "[RFC PATCH 2/2] kernel/sched.c: VLA in middle of struct"

See that particular reply below.

	Ingo

----- Forwarded message from Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -----

Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 15:03:44 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] kernel/sched.c: VLA in middle of struct
Cc: Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>,
	Mike Travis <travis@xxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, roland@xxxxxxxxxx

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:04:51PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 2009 12:39:54 am Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 06:19:40PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > Yeah, it's kinda nasty.  Generally, sched_group is dynamically allocated,
> > > so we just allocate sizeof(struct sched_group) + size of nr_cpu_ids bits.
> > >
> > > These ones are static, and it was easier to put this hack in than make
> > > them dynamic.  There's nothing wrong with it, until we really want
> > > NR_CPUS == bignum, or we want to get rid of NR_CPUS altogether for
> > > CONFIG_CPUMASKS_OFFSTACK (which would be very clean, but not clearly
> > > worthwhile).
> >
> > Nothing wrong with it, except
> >
> > - C99 only defines variable-length automatic arrays
> > - VLA in the middle of a struct are difficult to optimize
> > - gcc's VLA handling WILL change, as gcc docs state
> > - other compilers -- and sparse -- puke all over VLAs, making
> >   static analysis impossible for all code with this weirdism
> 
> Jeff, you seem confused.  In my copy of the standard, you'd know this is called 
> a "flexible array member"; it's not a variable length array.  The only GCC 
> specific issue I can find here is that you're not normally allowed to embed 
> structs with them in another struct (according to the gcc docs; I can't 
> actually find this clearly stated in the standard).

6.7.2.1p2.  It's a separate issue from revolting gcc extension that *do*
allow VLA-in-the-middle-of-struct.  And I mean real VLA, not flex array
member :-/

> Anyway, since [] is C99, I thought it preferable to [0] which is a gcc 
> extension.  However, if C99 is really so braindead as to disallow this fairly 
> standard trick, so I'm happy to go with the gcc extension.[1]

No.  There's a standard way to do that in C99; you can put a struct with
that thing into a union.  So correct way to force enought storage for
such an object is

union {
	struct has_flex_array_member foo;
	char [how_much_space_do_I_want];
} bar;

Unions with overlapping members are fine.  Structures are not.

----- End forwarded message -----
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/