On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 10:16:01AM -0700, Yury Norov wrote:
> > Hi Yury,
> >
> > I just wanted to report that the warning fires when doing
> > 'cat /proc/cpuinfo' on at least x86 and riscv. I don't think
> > those are false positives. I'm guessing a patch should be
> > something like the following diff. If you haven't already
> > addressed this and I'm not off in left field, then I guess
> > we should integrate it into your series.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > drew
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Can you please send it as a patch with a description?
Will do. I'll send two patches, one for each arch.
>
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c
> > index 4aa8cd749441..4c5dfa230d4b 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c
> > @@ -166,9 +166,12 @@ static void print_mmu(struct seq_file *f)
> >
> > static void *c_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *pos)
> > {
> > - *pos = cpumask_next(*pos - 1, cpu_online_mask);
> > - if ((*pos) < nr_cpu_ids)
> > - return (void *)(uintptr_t)(1 + *pos);
> > + if (*pos < nr_cpu_ids) {
> > + *pos = cpumask_next(*pos - 1, cpu_online_mask);
> > + if ((*pos) < nr_cpu_ids)
>
> Braces around *pos are not needed.
The braces were preexisting, but I'll drop them while indenting.
Thanks,
drew
>
> > + return (void *)(uintptr_t)(1 + *pos);
> > + }
> > +
> > return NULL;
> > }
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/proc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/proc.c
> > index 099b6f0d96bd..2ea614e78e28 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/proc.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/proc.c
> > @@ -153,9 +153,12 @@ static int show_cpuinfo(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> >
> > static void *c_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *pos)
> > {
> > - *pos = cpumask_next(*pos - 1, cpu_online_mask);
> > - if ((*pos) < nr_cpu_ids)
> > - return &cpu_data(*pos);
> > + if (*pos < nr_cpu_ids) {
> > + *pos = cpumask_next(*pos - 1, cpu_online_mask);
> > + if ((*pos) < nr_cpu_ids)
>
> Here too.
>
> Thanks,
> Yury
>
> > + return &cpu_data(*pos);
> > + }
> > +
> > return NULL;
> > }
> >
> > >
> > > > I suspect that to avoid any automation noise, you should just rebase
> > > > so that the fixes come first. Otherwise we'll end up wasting a lot of
> > > > time on the noise.
> > > >
> > > > This is not that different from introducing new buil;d-time warnings:
> > > > the things they point out need to be fixed before the warning can be
> > > > integrated, or it causes bisection problems.
> > >
> > > OK, I'll reorder the patches. Thanks for your help.
> > >
