On Tue, Nov 17 2020 at 11:31am -0500,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16 2020 at 6:00pm -0500,
> Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On 11/15/20 11:30 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 13.11.20 23:52, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > >> Building on arch/s390/ flags this as an error, so add the
> > >> __noreturn attribute modifier to prevent the build error.
> > >>
> > >> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
> > >> ../drivers/md/dm-writecache.c: In function 'persistent_memory_claim':
> > >> ../drivers/md/dm-writecache.c:323:1: error: no return statement in function returning non-void [-Werror=return-type]
> > >
> > > ok with me, but I am asking why
> > >
> > > the unreachable macro is not good enough. For x86 it obviously is.
> > >
> > > form arch/s390/include/asm/bug.h
> > > #define BUG() do { \
> > > __EMIT_BUG(0); \
> > > unreachable(); \
> > > } while (0)
> > >
> >
> > Hi Christian,
> >
> > Good question.
> > I don't see any guidance about when to use one or the other etc.
> >
> > I see __noreturn being used 109 times and unreachable();
> > being used 33 times, but only now that I look at them.
> > That had nothing to do with why I used __noreturn in the patch.
>
> But doesn't that speak to the proper fix being needed in unreachable()?
> Or at a minimum the fix is needed to arch/s390/include/asm/bug.h's BUG.
>
> I really don't think we should be papering over that by sprinkling
> __noreturn around the kernel's BUG() callers.
>
> Maybe switch arch/s390/include/asm/bug.h's BUG to be like
> arch/mips/include/asm/bug.h? It itself uses __noreturn with a 'static
> inline' function definition rather than #define.
>
> Does that fix the issue?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> p.s. you modified dm-writecache.c (not dm-writeback, wich doesn't
> exist).
I don't think my suggestion will help.. given it'd still leave
persistent_memory_claim() without a return statement.
Think it worthwhile to just add a dummy 'return 0;' after the BUG().
Mike
