On 20 March 2018 at 01:06, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 17 2018, Justin Skists wrote: > >> Fix sparse warning: >> >> CHECK drivers/staging//lustre/lnet/lnet/acceptor.c >> drivers/staging//lustre/lnet/lnet/acceptor.c:243:30: warning: cast to >> restricted __le32 >> >> LNET_PROTO_TCP_MAGIC, as a define, is already CPU byte-ordered when >> compared to 'magic', so no need for a cast. >> >> Signed-off-by: Justin Skists <j.skists@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/acceptor.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/acceptor.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/acceptor.c >> index fb478e20e204..13e981781b9a 100644 >> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/acceptor.c >> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/acceptor.c >> @@ -240,7 +240,7 @@ lnet_accept(struct socket *sock, __u32 magic) >> return -EPROTO; >> } >> >> - if (magic == le32_to_cpu(LNET_PROTO_TCP_MAGIC)) >> + if (magic == LNET_PROTO_TCP_MAGIC) >> str = "'old' socknal/tcpnal"; >> else >> str = "unrecognised"; > > This code is almost completely irrelevant (it just choose which error > message to use when failing), but we may as well get it right and I > cannot see why your change is a fix. I admit that the change is trivial, and, in hindsight, the word fix is a little "strong". The rationale was that the if-statement, as it was, probably wouldn't work as intented on big-endian systems. I chose this sparse warning to test the waters, as it was an isolated change, before I thought about proposing a bigger change: There are quite a few sparse warning in regards to struct lnet_hdr with regards to __u32 vs. __le32 (etc.) restricted castings. > I suspect a more correct fix would be to use > lnet_accept_magic(magic, LNET_PROTO_TCP_MAGIC) > as the condition of the if(). This is consistent with other code that > tests magic, and it is consistent with the general understanding that > "magic" should be in host-byte-order for the peer which sent the > message. > > Could you resubmit with that change? I agree that your suggestion is a much better fix. As Greg has already accepted the patch in question into staging-next, would the correct course of action be for me to submit a new patch with a "fixes" tag based on staging-next? Or would Greg prefer to drop the previous one for a fresh v2? Regards, Justin. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
