Hi All,
I'm getting complaints from smatch on the ionic network driver's static
assertions and am not sure why it was complaining. Dan Carpenter
suggested this might be an issue in sparse with how it is calculating
the sizes of the unions.
I ran this at the top of a pretty recent net-next tree
(v5.5-rc7-1839-g8192c36)
$ ../smatch/smatch_scripts/kchecker drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/
And got several copies of this:
drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_dev.h:38:1: error: static
assertion failed: "sizeof(union ionic_dev_regs) == 4096"
drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_dev.h:40:1: error: static
assertion failed: "sizeof(union ionic_dev_cmd_regs) == 2048"
drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_dev.h:56:1: error: static
assertion failed: "sizeof(struct ionic_dev_getattr_comp) == 16"
drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_dev.h:57:1: error: static
assertion failed: "sizeof(struct ionic_dev_setattr_cmd) == 64"
drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_dev.h:58:1: error: static
assertion failed: "sizeof(struct ionic_dev_setattr_comp) == 16"
drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_dev.h:68:1: error: static
assertion failed: "sizeof(struct ionic_port_getattr_comp) == 16"
drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_dev.h:78:1: error: static
assertion failed: "sizeof(struct ionic_lif_getattr_comp) == 16"
drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_dev.h:79:1: error: static
assertion failed: "sizeof(struct ionic_lif_setattr_cmd) == 64"
drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_dev.h:80:1: error: static
assertion failed: "sizeof(struct ionic_lif_setattr_comp) == 16"
drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_dev.h:82:1: error: static
assertion failed: "sizeof(struct ionic_q_init_cmd) == 64"
drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_dev.h:117:1: error: static
assertion failed: "sizeof(struct ionic_vf_setattr_cmd) == 64"
drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_dev.h:120:1: error: static
assertion failed: "sizeof(struct ionic_vf_getattr_comp) == 16"
These static assertion lines have been fine up until now and I'm pretty
sure they are correct.
Has this issue been seen elsewhere? Or is there something I can do in
our code to get rid of the complaints?
Thanks,
sln
