Re: [PATCH bpf-next] selftests/bpf: fix a clang compilation error for send_signal.c

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 3/10/22 4:17 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 4:05 PM Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> wrote:

Building selftests/bpf with latest clang compiler (clang15 built
from source), I hit the following compilation error:
   /.../prog_tests/send_signal.c:43:16: error: variable 'j' set but not used [-Werror,-Wunused-but-set-variable]
                   volatile int j = 0;
                                ^
   1 error generated.
The problem also exists with clang13 and clang14. clang12 is okay.

In send_signal.c, we have the following code
   volatile int j = 0;
   ...
   for (int i = 0; i < 100000000 && !sigusr1_received; i++)
     j /= i + 1;
to burn cpu cycles so bpf_send_signal() helper can be tested
in nmi mode.

Slightly changing 'j /= i + 1' to 'j /= i + j' or 'j++' can
fix the problem. Further investigation indicated this should be
a clang bug ([1]). The upstream fix will be proposed later. But it is
a good idea to workaround the issue to unblock people who build
kernel/selftests with clang.

  [1] https://discourse.llvm.org/t/strange-clang-unused-but-set-variable-error-with-volatile-variables/60841

Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx>
---
  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/send_signal.c | 2 +-
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/send_signal.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/send_signal.c
index def50f1c5c31..05e303119151 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/send_signal.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/send_signal.c
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ static void test_send_signal_common(struct perf_event_attr *attr,

                 /* wait a little for signal handler */
                 for (int i = 0; i < 100000000 && !sigusr1_received; i++)
-                       j /= i + 1;
+                       j /= i + j;

`+ 1` was there to avoid division by zero. Let's make it `i + j + 1` then.

Good point. Previously I did this 'i + 1 + j' and run the selftests and it works fine. And for preparing the final patch, I removed "+ 1" to simplify the code but didn't actually run the test which is not great.

Will fix in v2.



                 buf[0] = sigusr1_received ? '2' : '0';
                 ASSERT_EQ(sigusr1_received, 1, "sigusr1_received");
--
2.30.2




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux