On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 11:49:17AM +0300, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 5:52 PM, kbuild test robot
>> >> kernel/locking/qspinlock.c:418:22: sparse: incorrect type in assignment (different modifiers) @@ expected struct mcs_spinlock *prev @@ got struct struct mcs_spinlock *prev @@
>> >> kernel/locking/qspinlock.c:418:22: expected struct mcs_spinlock *prev
>> >> kernel/locking/qspinlock.c:418:22: got struct mcs_spinlock [pure] *
>
>> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 283 static __always_inline unsigned long
>> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 284 cmpxchg_size(volatile void *ptr, unsigned long old, unsigned long new, int size)
>> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 285 {
>> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 286 switch (size) {
>> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 287 case 1:
>> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 @288 return arch_cmpxchg((u8 *)ptr, (u8)old, (u8)new);
>> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 289 case 2:
>> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 290 return arch_cmpxchg((u16 *)ptr, (u16)old, (u16)new);
>> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 291 case 4:
>> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 292 return arch_cmpxchg((u32 *)ptr, (u32)old, (u32)new);
>> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 293 case 8:
>> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 294 BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(unsigned long) != 8);
>> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 295 return arch_cmpxchg((u64 *)ptr, (u64)old, (u64)new);
>> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 296 }
>> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 297 BUILD_BUG();
>> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 298 return 0;
>> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 299 }
>> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 300
>
>> It seems that this is due to this guy:
>>
>> static __always_inline int trylock_clear_pending(struct qspinlock *lock)
>> {
>> struct __qspinlock *l = (void *)lock;
>>
>> return !READ_ONCE(l->locked) &&
>> (cmpxchg_acquire(&l->locked_pending, _Q_PENDING_VAL,
>> _Q_LOCKED_VAL) == _Q_PENDING_VAL);
>> }
>>
>> _Q_PENDING_VAL is 0x100. However, locked_pending is 2 bytes. So it
>> seems that compiler checks all switch cases, this inevitably will lead
>> to such warnings.
>>
>> Any suggestion on how to resolve this? Leave as is?
>
> I'm not sure I understand what it thinks is wrong. Can't we fix sparse
> to not be stupid? The actual compilers don't seem to a have a problem
> with this.
That would be best of course. +sparse mailing list and Christopher.
>> Off the top of my head I can think of the following solution:
>>
>> switch (size) {
>> case 1:
>> return arch_cmpxchg((u8 *)ptr, (u8)(old * (size !=
>> 1)), (u8)(new * (size != 1)));
>> case 2:
>> return arch_cmpxchg((u16 *)ptr, (u16)(old * (size !=
>> 2)), (u16)(new * (size != 2)));
>>
>> But it's too ugly.
>
> Yes agreed, that's horrendous.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
