On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 09:56:05PM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote:
> >> mm/memory.c:3968:21: sparse: incorrect type in assignment (different
> >> base types) @@ expected restricted vm_fault_t [usertype] ret @@
> >> got e] ret @@
> mm/memory.c:3968:21: expected restricted vm_fault_t [usertype] ret
> mm/memory.c:3968:21: got int
I think this may be a sparse bug.
Compare:
+++ b/mm/memory.c
@@ -3964,6 +3964,9 @@ vm_fault_t handle_mm_fault(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address,
if (flags & FAULT_FLAG_USER)
mem_cgroup_enter_user_fault();
+ ret = 0;
+ ret = ({ BUG(); 0; });
+ ret = 1;
if (unlikely(is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma)))
ret = hugetlb_fault(vma->vm_mm, vma, address, flags);
else
../mm/memory.c:3968:13: sparse: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different base types)
../mm/memory.c:3968:13: sparse: expected restricted vm_fault_t [assigned] [usertype] ret
../mm/memory.c:3968:13: sparse: got int
../mm/memory.c:3969:13: sparse: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different base types)
../mm/memory.c:3969:13: sparse: expected restricted vm_fault_t [assigned] [usertype] ret
../mm/memory.c:3969:13: sparse: got int
vm_fault_t is __bitwise:
include/linux/mm_types.h:typedef __bitwise unsigned int vm_fault_t;
so simply assigning 0 to ret should work (and does on line 3967), but
sparse doesn't seem to like it as part of a ({ .. }) expression.
