Hello, On Mon, 18 Mar 2019, Jacky Hu wrote: > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 10:10:20AM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote: > > Hi Jacky, > > > > Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve: > > > > [auto build test WARNING on ipvs-next/master] > > [also build test WARNING on v5.1-rc1 next-20190306] > > [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system] > > > > url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Jacky-Hu/ipvs-allow-tunneling-with-gue-encapsulation/20190318-070156 > > base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/horms/ipvs-next.git master > > reproduce: > > # apt-get install sparse > > make ARCH=x86_64 allmodconfig > > make C=1 CF='-fdiagnostic-prefix -D__CHECK_ENDIAN__' > > > > > > sparse warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>) > > > > net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_ctl.c:835:42: sparse: incorrect type in argument 2 (different base types) @@ expected int [signed] i @@ got restricted __be1int [signed] i @@ > > net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_ctl.c:835:42: expected int [signed] i > > net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_ctl.c:835:42: got restricted __be16 [usertype] tun_port > > net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_ctl.c:1197:44: sparse: expression using sizeof(void) > > >> net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_ctl.c:3207:37: sparse: incorrect type in argument 3 (different base types) @@ expected restricted __be16 [usertype] value @@ got e] value @@ > > net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_ctl.c:3207:37: expected restricted __be16 [usertype] value > > net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_ctl.c:3207:37: got int > > net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_ctl.c:1313:27: sparse: dereference of noderef expression > > > > vim +3207 net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_ctl.c > > > > > 3207 atomic_read(&dest->tun_port)) || > > Should I change the type of tun_port from __be16 to u16? > Looks like kbuild bugs a lot on this. In struct ip_vs_dest you should use __be16 for tun_port and __u16 for tun_type and avoid any atomic_t usage. To test it with sparse: make C=2 CF="-D__CHECK_ENDIAN__" net/netfilter/ipvs/ And this is the only problem in v4 of the patch. Then may be you should wait when net-next opens again before submitting v5. Regards -- Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
