The quilt patch titled
Subject: nodemask.h: fix compilation error with GCC12
has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was
nodemaskh-fix-compilation-error-with-gcc12.patch
This patch was dropped because it was merged into the mm-stable branch
of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm
------------------------------------------------------
From: Christophe de Dinechin <dinechin@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: nodemask.h: fix compilation error with GCC12
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 17:08:54 +0200
With gcc version 12.0.1 20220401 (Red Hat 12.0.1-0), building with
defconfig results in the following compilation error:
| CC mm/swapfile.o
| mm/swapfile.c: In function `setup_swap_info':
| mm/swapfile.c:2291:47: error: array subscript -1 is below array bounds
| of `struct plist_node[]' [-Werror=array-bounds]
| 2291 | p->avail_lists[i].prio = 1;
| | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
| In file included from mm/swapfile.c:16:
| ./include/linux/swap.h:292:27: note: while referencing `avail_lists'
| 292 | struct plist_node avail_lists[]; /*
| | ^~~~~~~~~~~
This is due to the compiler detecting that the mask in
node_states[__state] could theoretically be zero, which would lead to
first_node() returning -1 through find_first_bit.
I believe that the warning/error is legitimate. I first tried adding a
test to check that the node mask is not emtpy, since a similar test exists
in the case where MAX_NUMNODES == 1.
However, adding the if statement causes other warnings to appear in
for_each_cpu_node_but, because it introduces a dangling else ambiguity.
And unfortunately, GCC is not smart enough to detect that the added test
makes the case where (node) == -1 impossible, so it still complains with
the same message.
This is why I settled on replacing that with a harmless, but relatively
useless (node) >= 0 test. Based on the warning for the dangling else, I
also decided to fix the case where MAX_NUMNODES == 1 by moving the
condition inside the for loop. It will still only be tested once. This
ensures that the meaning of an else following for_each_node_mask or
derivatives would not silently have a different meaning depending on the
configuration.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220414150855.2407137-3-dinechin@xxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Christophe de Dinechin <christophe@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Christophe de Dinechin <dinechin@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Ben Segall <bsegall@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
include/linux/nodemask.h | 13 ++++++-------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
--- a/include/linux/nodemask.h~nodemaskh-fix-compilation-error-with-gcc12
+++ a/include/linux/nodemask.h
@@ -375,14 +375,13 @@ static inline void __nodes_fold(nodemask
}
#if MAX_NUMNODES > 1
-#define for_each_node_mask(node, mask) \
- for ((node) = first_node(mask); \
- (node) < MAX_NUMNODES; \
- (node) = next_node((node), (mask)))
+#define for_each_node_mask(node, mask) \
+ for ((node) = first_node(mask); \
+ (node >= 0) && (node) < MAX_NUMNODES; \
+ (node) = next_node((node), (mask)))
#else /* MAX_NUMNODES == 1 */
-#define for_each_node_mask(node, mask) \
- if (!nodes_empty(mask)) \
- for ((node) = 0; (node) < 1; (node)++)
+#define for_each_node_mask(node, mask) \
+ for ((node) = 0; (node) < 1 && !nodes_empty(mask); (node)++)
#endif /* MAX_NUMNODES */
/*
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from dinechin@xxxxxxxxxx are
