On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 08:57:08PM -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>
>
> On 3/25/24 16:47, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 02:24:07PM -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > > -Wflex-array-member-not-at-end is coming in GCC-14, and we are getting
> > > ready to enable it globally.
> > >
> > > Use the `struct_group_tagged()` helper to separate the flexible array
> > > from the rest of the members in flexible `struct cm_work`, and avoid
> > > embedding the flexible-array member in `struct cm_timewait_info`.
> > >
> > > Also, use `container_of()` to retrieve a pointer to the flexible
> > > structure.
> > >
> > > So, with these changes, fix the following warning:
> > > drivers/infiniband/core/cm.c:196:24: warning: structure containing a flexible array member is not at the end of another structure [-Wflex-array-member-not-at-end]
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/infiniband/core/cm.c | 21 ++++++++++++---------
> > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/cm.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/cm.c
> > > index bf0df6ee4f78..80c87085499c 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/infiniband/core/cm.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/cm.c
> > > @@ -182,18 +182,21 @@ struct cm_av {
> > > };
> > > struct cm_work {
> > > - struct delayed_work work;
> > > - struct list_head list;
> > > - struct cm_port *port;
> > > - struct ib_mad_recv_wc *mad_recv_wc; /* Received MADs */
> > > - __be32 local_id; /* Established / timewait */
> > > - __be32 remote_id;
> > > - struct ib_cm_event cm_event;
> > > + /* New members must be added within the struct_group() macro below. */
> > > + struct_group_tagged(cm_work_hdr, hdr,
> > > + struct delayed_work work;
> > > + struct list_head list;
> > > + struct cm_port *port;
> > > + struct ib_mad_recv_wc *mad_recv_wc; /* Received MADs */
> > > + __be32 local_id; /* Established / timewait */
> > > + __be32 remote_id;
> > > + struct ib_cm_event cm_event;
> > > + );
> > > struct sa_path_rec path[];
> > > };
> >
> > I didn't look, but does it make more sense to break out the path side
> > into its own type and avoid the struct_group_tagged? I seem to
> > remember only one thing used it.
> >
>
> I thought about that, but I'd have to change the parameter type of
> `static int cm_timewait_handler(struct cm_work *work)`, and that would
> imply also modifying the internals of function `cm_work_handler()` (and
> then I didn't look much into it).
So let's try to invest in this direction first before we add obfuscation
with magic words to the code.
Thanks
> So, the `struct_group_tagged()` strategy is in general more cleaner and straightforward.
>
> --
> Gustavo
>
>
