On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 12:00:06PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 29/04/2019 07:09, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > diff --git a/net/rds/ib_recv.c b/net/rds/ib_recv.c
> > index 7055985..a070a2d 100644
> > --- a/net/rds/ib_recv.c
> > +++ b/net/rds/ib_recv.c
> > @@ -824,7 +824,7 @@ static void rds_ib_cong_recv(struct rds_connection *conn,
> > }
> >
> > /* the congestion map is in little endian order */
> > - uncongested = le64_to_cpu(uncongested);
> > + uncongested = le64_to_cpu((__force __le64)uncongested);
> >
> > rds_cong_map_updated(map, uncongested);
> > }
> Again, a __force cast doesn't seem necessary here. It looks like the
> code is just using the wrong types; if all of src, dst and uncongested
> were __le64 instead of uint64_t, and the last two lines replaced with
> rds_cong_map_updated(map, le64_to_cpu(uncongested)); then the semantics
> would be kept with neither sparse errors nor __force.
>
> __force is almost never necessary and mostly just masks other bugs or
> endianness confusion in the surrounding code. Instead of adding a
> __force, either fix the code to be sparse-clean or leave the sparse
> warning in place so that future developers know there's something not
> right.
>
changing uncongested to __le64 is not an option here - it would only move
the sparse warnings to those other locatoins where the ports that
became uncongested are being or'ed into uncongested.
I'm not using __force as the prime way to silence sparse - I try to find
an alternative first - the problem is in line 805
for (k = 0; k < to_copy; k += 8) {
/* Record ports that became uncongested, ie
* bits that changed from 0 to 1. */
uncongested |= ~(*src) & *dst;
*dst++ = *src++;
}
And in this case the endianness handling does seem right.
But ok with me to leave it in as it is - if you think that the __force
here is not justified.
thanks for your comments and notably the explainations !
thx!
hofrat
alternative
