michaelh/zephyr
1
0
Fork 0
Code Releases Activity

kernel/sched: Rework prio validity assertion

Browse source 
This is throwing errors in static analysis, complaining that comparing
that a prior is higher and lower is impossible.  That is wrong per my
eyes (I swear I think it might be cueing off the names of the
functions, which invert "higher" and "lower" to match our reversed
priority numbers).

But frankly this was never a very readable macro to begin with.
Refactor to put the bounds into the term, so the static analyzer can
prove it locally, and add a build assertion to catch any errors (there
are none currently) where the low<->high priority range is invalid.

Long term, we should probably remove this macro, it doesn't provide
much value.  But removing it in response to a static analysis failure
is... not very responsible as a development practice.

Fixes #14816
Fixes #14820

Signed-off-by: Andy Ross <andrew.j.ross@intel.com>
This commit is contained in:
Andy Ross 2019-03-22 09:10:38 -07:00 • committed by Kumar Gala
commit e59d19628d
1 changed files with 8 additions and 5 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

13
kernel/include/ksched.h
View file

@ -12,13 +12,16 @@
#include <tracing.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
BUILD_ASSERT(K_LOWEST_APPLICATION_THREAD_PRIO
>= K_HIGHEST_APPLICATION_THREAD_PRIO);
#ifdef CONFIG_MULTITHREADING
#define Z_VALID_PRIO(prio, entry_point) \
#define Z_VALID_PRIO(prio, entry_point) \
(((prio) == K_IDLE_PRIO && z_is_idle_thread(entry_point)) || \
(z_is_prio_higher_or_equal((prio), \
K_LOWEST_APPLICATION_THREAD_PRIO) && \
z_is_prio_lower_or_equal((prio), \
K_HIGHEST_APPLICATION_THREAD_PRIO)))
((K_LOWEST_APPLICATION_THREAD_PRIO \
>= K_HIGHEST_APPLICATION_THREAD_PRIO) \
&& (prio) >= K_HIGHEST_APPLICATION_THREAD_PRIO \
&& (prio) <= K_LOWEST_APPLICATION_THREAD_PRIO))
#define Z_ASSERT_VALID_PRIO(prio, entry_point) do { \
__ASSERT(Z_VALID_PRIO((prio), (entry_point)), \