On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 02:03:06PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 10/26/20 12:57 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
> >
> > When building with W=2, the build log is flooded with
> >
> > include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h:65:56: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of 'atomic_try_cmpxchg_acquire' differ in signedness [-Wpointer-sign]
> > include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h:92:53: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of 'atomic_try_cmpxchg_acquire' differ in signedness [-Wpointer-sign]
> > include/asm-generic/qspinlock.h:68:55: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of 'atomic_try_cmpxchg_acquire' differ in signedness [-Wpointer-sign]
> > include/asm-generic/qspinlock.h:82:52: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of 'atomic_try_cmpxchg_acquire' differ in signedness [-Wpointer-sign]
> >
> > The atomics are built on top of signed integers, but the caller
> > doesn't actually care. Just use signed types as well.
Code consistency cares. Fundamentally we're treating it as a u32 here,
using int just because of a confused compiler warning will confuse.
> > @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ extern void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val);
> > */
> > static __always_inline void queued_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
> > {
> > - u32 val = 0;
> > + int val = 0;
> > if (likely(atomic_try_cmpxchg_acquire(&lock->val, &val, _Q_LOCKED_VAL)))
> > return;
> Yes, it shouldn't really matter if the value is defined as int or u32.
> However, the only caveat that I see is queued_spin_lock_slowpath() is
> expecting a u32 argument. Maybe you should cast it back to (u32) when
> calling it.
No, we're not going to confuse the code. That stuff is hard enough as it
is. This warning is garbage and just needs to stay off.
