Subject: [PATCH] arch/mips: remove duplicate structure field initialization

From: Julia Lawall <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:08:55 +0200 (CEST)

From: Julia Lawall <[email-masked]>

The definition of the irq_ipi structure has two initializations of the
flags field.  This combines them.

The semantic match that finds this problem is as follows:
(http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)

// <smpl>
@r@
identifier I, s, fld;
position p0,p;
expression E;
@@

struct I s =@p0 { ... .fld@p = E, ...};

@s@
identifier I, s, r.fld;
position r.p0,p;
expression E;
@@

struct I s =@p0 { ... .fld@p = E, ...};

@script:python@
p0 << r.p0;
fld << r.fld;
ps << s.p;
pr << r.p;
@@

if int(ps[0].line)!=int(pr[0].line) or int(ps[0].column)!=int(pr[0].column):
  cocci.print_main(fld,p0)
// </smpl>

Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <[email-masked]>

---
 arch/mips/kernel/smtc.c             |    5 ++---
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/mips/kernel/smtc.c b/arch/mips/kernel/smtc.c
index 67153a0..4d181df 100644
--- a/arch/mips/kernel/smtc.c
+++ b/arch/mips/kernel/smtc.c
@@ -1098,9 +1098,8 @@ static void ipi_irq_dispatch(void)
 
 static struct irqaction irq_ipi = {
 	.handler	= ipi_interrupt,
-	.flags		= IRQF_DISABLED,
-	.name		= "SMTC_IPI",
-	.flags		= IRQF_PERCPU
+	.flags		= IRQF_DISABLED | IRQF_PERCPU,
+	.name		= "SMTC_IPI"
 };
 
 static void setup_cross_vpe_interrupts(unsigned int nvpe)

---

From: Ralf Baechle <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:25:20 +0100

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 05:08:55PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:

Adding Kevin "SMTC Kissel to cc.

>  static void setup_cross_vpe_interrupts(unsigned int nvpe)

The actual semantic of this code as implemented by gcc is that all but the
last initializer are ignored so until somebody actually tests your code
I'll just remove the first of the two initializers and put a comment there.

  Ralf

---

From: "Kevin D. Kissell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:23:45 -0700

I'm still on the mailing list, and had seen this going by.  I'm not sure 
where that second .flags declaration got added.  Way, way back when I 
was pretty much the only maintainer of the file, irq_ipi.flags was 
explicitly  initialized to IRQF_DISABLED by an actual assignment 
statement in setp_cross_vpe_interrupts(), and the per-CPUness was 
handled by an "irq_desc[cpu_ipi_irq].status |= IRQ_PER_CPU".  My guess 
is that first someone (maybe me) migrated the IRQF_DISABLED assignment 
into the declaration of the struct, and that later someone found the 
IRQ_PER_CPU thing bogus or deprecated and converted it into a second 
.flags line in the struct declaration, missing the fact that there was 
already one there.

In any case, I'm willing to sign off on Julia's patch.  It's certainly 
more important that the IRQ be PER_CPU than initially DISABLED, but 
during the time when SMTC was seeing its heaviest testing at MIPS, both 
attributes were true.

          Regards,

          Kevin K.

---

From: "Kevin D. Kissell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:41:49 -0700

Ha!  Found the breakage.  It wasn't a two-phase commit.  It was just an 
overworked mantainer in a hurry, in July 2007.  See commit 
033890b084adfa367c544864451d7730552ce8bf

Regards,

Kevin K.

Kevin D. Kissell wrote:
> I'm still on the mailing list, and had seen this going by.  I'm not 
> sure where that second .flags declaration got added.  Way, way back 
> when I was pretty much the only maintainer of the file, irq_ipi.flags 
> was explicitly  initialized to IRQF_DISABLED by an actual assignment 
> during the time when SMTC was seeing its heaviest testing at MIPS, 
> both attributes were true.
>
>          Regards,
>
>          Kevin K.
>
> Ralf Baechle wrote:

---

From: Ralf Baechle <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:55:52 +0100

> 033890b084adfa367c544864451d7730552ce8bf

An overworked maintainer in cooperation with a broken compiler.  Worse -
it's not the first time this type of bug strikes but probably this was
never brought to the gcc maintainers' attention.

  Ralf

---

From: Ralf Baechle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:13:23 +0100

> during the time when SMTC was seeing its heaviest testing at MIPS, both  

I've reverted my patch and merged Julia's original patch with an extra
comment added.

Thanks Julia,

   Ralf