Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, 08 Dec 2021 10:00:15 +0200 Kalle Valo wrote: >> Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 14:42:11 +0000 (UTC) Kalle Valo wrote: >> >> here's a pull request to net-next tree, more info below. Please let me know if >> >> there are any problems. >> > >> > Pulled, thanks! Could you chase the appropriate people so that the new >> > W=1 C=1 warnings get resolved before the merge window's here? >> > >> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20211207144211.A9949C341C1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >> >> Just so that I understand right, you are referring to this patchwork >> test: >> >> Errors and warnings before: 111 this patch: 115 >> >> https://patchwork.hopto.org/static/nipa/591659/12662005/build_32bit/ >> >> And you want the four new warnings to be fixed? That can be quite time >> consuming, to be honest I would rather revert the commits than using a >> lot of my time trying to get people fix the warnings. Is there an easy >> way to find what are the new warnings? > > Yeah, scroll down, there is a diff of the old warnings vs new ones, and > a summary of which files have changed their warning count: > > + 2 ../drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c > + 3 ../drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mei/main.c > - 1 ../drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/ops.c > + 2 ../drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/ops.c > - 2 ../drivers/net/wireless/microchip/wilc1000/wlan.c Ah, that makes it easier. > So presumably these are the warnings that were added: > > drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mei/main.c:193: warning: cannot > understand function prototype: 'struct ' > drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mei/main.c:1784: warning: Function > parameter or member 'cldev' not described in 'iwl_mei_probe' > drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mei/main.c:1784: warning: Function > parameter or member 'id' not described in 'iwl_mei_probe' Luca, please take a look and send a patch. I'll then apply it directly to wireless-drivers-next. > drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c:3911:28: > warning: incorrect type in assignment (different base types) > drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c:3911:28: > expected restricted __le32 [assigned] [usertype] period_msec > drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c:3911:28: > got restricted __le16 [usertype] > drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c:3913:30: > warning: incorrect type in assignment (different base types) > drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c:3913:30: > expected unsigned char [assigned] [usertype] keep_alive_id > drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c:3913:30: > got restricted __le16 [usertype] Loic, your patch should fix these, right? https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/patch/1638953708-29192-1-git-send-email-loic.poulain@xxxxxxxxxx/ > drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/ops.c:684:12: warning: context > imbalance in 'iwl_mvm_start_get_nvm' - wrong count at exit Luca, please also take a look at this. >> But in the big picture are you saying the net trees now have a rule that >> no new W=1 and C=1 warnings are allowed? I do test ath10k and ath11k >> drivers for W=1 and C=1 warnings, but all other drivers are on their own >> in this regard. At the moment I have no tooling in place to check all >> wireless drivers. > > For the code we merge directly we try to make sure there are no new > warnings. I realize it's quite a bit of work for larger trees unless > you have the infra so not a hard requirement (for you). Yeah, at the moment I really would not be able to catch W=1 or sparse warnings :/ And fixing them afterwards is just too slow. But if we would be able to fix all the warnings in drivers/net/wireless then it would be easy for me to enable W=1 and C=1 in my own build tests. > FWIW the build bot we wrote is available on GH: > > https://github.com/kuba-moo/nipa > > But it currently hard codes tree matching logic for bpf and netdev, > so would probably take a few hours to adopt it. Thanks, it would good to have a similar system for wireless trees. Anyone want to help? :) -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
