On Fri 02-08-24 18:31:46, Mirsad Todorovac wrote: > On 7/18/24 11:39, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Thu 18-07-24 00:14:24, Mirsad Todorovac wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 7/17/24 17:44, Jan Kara wrote: > >>> On Tue 16-07-24 19:17:05, Mirsad Todorovac wrote: > >>>> On 7/15/24 19:28, Jan Kara wrote: > >>>>> Hello Mirsad! > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed 10-07-24 20:09:27, Mirsad Todorovac wrote: > >>>>>> On the linux-next vanilla next-20240709 tree, I have attempted the seed KCONFIG_SEED=0xEE7AB52F > >>>>>> which was known from before to trigger various errors in compile and build process. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Though this might seem as contributing to channel noise, Linux refuses to build this config, > >>>>>> treating warnings as errors, using this build line: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> $ time nice make W=1 -k -j 36 |& tee ../err-next-20230709-01a.log; date > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As I know that the Chief Penguin doesn't like warnings, but I am also aware that there are plenty > >>>>>> left, there seems to be more tedious work ahead to make the compilers happy. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The compiler output is: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>> fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c: In function ‘balance_leaf_new_nodes_paste_whole’: > >>>>>> fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c:1147:13: error: variable ‘leaf_mi’ set but not used [-Werror=unused-but-set-variable] > >>>>>> 1147 | int leaf_mi; > >>>>>> | ^~~~~~~ > >>>>> > >>>>> Frankly, I wouldn't bother with reiserfs. The warning is there for ages, > >>>>> the code is going to get removed in two releases, so I guess we can live > >>>>> with these warnings for a few more months... > >>>> > >>>> In essence I agree with you, but for sentimental reasons I would like to > >>>> keep it because it is my first journaling Linux system on Knoppix 🙂 > >>> > >>> As much as I understand your sentiment (I have a bit of history with that > >>> fs as well) the maintenance cost isn't really worth it and most fs folks > >>> will celebrate when it's removed. We have already announced the removal > >>> year and half ago and I'm fully for executing that plan at the end of this > >>> year. > >>> > >>>> Patch is also simple and a no-brainer, as proposed by Mr. Cook: > >>>> > >>>> -------------------------------><------------------------------------------ > >>>> diff --git a/fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c b/fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c > >>>> index 5129efc6f2e6..fbe73f267853 100644 > >>>> --- a/fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c > >>>> +++ b/fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c > >>>> @@ -1144,7 +1144,9 @@ static void balance_leaf_new_nodes_paste_whole(struct tree_balance *tb, > >>>> { > >>>> struct buffer_head *tbS0 = PATH_PLAST_BUFFER(tb->tb_path); > >>>> int n = B_NR_ITEMS(tbS0); > >>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK > >>>> int leaf_mi; > >>>> +#endif > >>> > >>> Well, I would not like this even for actively maintained code ;) If you > >>> want to silence these warnings in this dead code, then I could live with > >>> something like: > >>> > >>> #if defined( CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK ) > >>> #define RFALSE(cond, format, args...) __RASSERT(!(cond), ....) > >>> #else > >>> - #define RFALSE( cond, format, args... ) do {;} while( 0 ) > >>> + #define RFALSE( cond, format, args... ) do { (void)cond; } while( 0 ) > >>> #endif > >> > >> Yes, one line change is much smarter than 107 line patch of mine :-) > >> > >> Verified, and this line solved all the warnings: > >> > >> CC fs/reiserfs/bitmap.o > >> CC fs/reiserfs/do_balan.o > >> CC fs/reiserfs/namei.o > >> CC fs/reiserfs/inode.o > >> CC fs/reiserfs/file.o > >> CC fs/reiserfs/dir.o > >> CC fs/reiserfs/fix_node.o > >> CC fs/reiserfs/super.o > >> CC fs/reiserfs/prints.o > >> CC fs/reiserfs/objectid.o > >> CC fs/reiserfs/lbalance.o > >> CC fs/reiserfs/ibalance.o > >> CC fs/reiserfs/stree.o > >> CC fs/reiserfs/hashes.o > >> CC fs/reiserfs/tail_conversion.o > >> CC fs/reiserfs/journal.o > >> CC fs/reiserfs/resize.o > >> CC fs/reiserfs/item_ops.o > >> CC fs/reiserfs/ioctl.o > >> CC fs/reiserfs/xattr.o > >> CC fs/reiserfs/lock.o > >> CC fs/reiserfs/procfs.o > >> AR fs/reiserfs/built-in.a > >> > >> Just FWIW, back then in year 2000/2001 a journaling file system on my > >> Knoppix box was a quantum leap - it would simply replay the journal if > >> there was a power loss before shutdown. No several minutes of fsck. > > > > Well, there was also ext3 at that time already :-) That's where I became > > familiar with the idea of journalling. Reiserfs was interesting to me > > because of completely different approach to on-disk format (b-tree with > > formatted items), packing of small files / file tails (interesting in 2000, > > not so much 20 years later) and reasonable scalability for large > > directories. > > > >> I think your idea is great and if you wish a patch could be submitted > >> after the merge window. > > > > I'll leave it up to you. If the warnings annoy you, send the patch along > > the lines I've proposed (BTW (void)cond should better be (void)(cond) for > > macro safety) and I'll push it to Linus. > > > > Honza > > Hi, Jan, > > After a short break, I just tried a full build with this hack against the vanilla > linux-next tree: > > #define RFALSE( cond, format, args... ) do { (void)(cond); } while( 0 ) > > and it breaks at least here: > > In file included from fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c:15: > fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c: In function ‘balance_leaf_when_delete_del’: > fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c:86:28: error: ‘ih’ undeclared (first use in this function) > 86 | RFALSE(ih_item_len(ih) + IH_SIZE != -tb->insert_size[0], > | ^~ > fs/reiserfs/reiserfs.h:919:54: note: in definition of macro ‘RFALSE’ > 919 | #define RFALSE( cond, format, args... ) do { (void) (cond); } while( 0 ) > | ^~~~ > ./include/linux/byteorder/generic.h:91:21: note: in expansion of macro ‘__le16_to_cpu’ > 91 | #define le16_to_cpu __le16_to_cpu > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ > fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c:86:16: note: in expansion of macro ‘ih_item_len’ > 86 | RFALSE(ih_item_len(ih) + IH_SIZE != -tb->insert_size[0], > | ^~~~~~~~~~~ > fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c:86:28: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in > 86 | RFALSE(ih_item_len(ih) + IH_SIZE != -tb->insert_size[0], > | ^~ > fs/reiserfs/reiserfs.h:919:54: note: in definition of macro ‘RFALSE’ > 919 | #define RFALSE( cond, format, args... ) do { (void) (cond); } while( 0 ) > | ^~~~ > ./include/linux/byteorder/generic.h:91:21: note: in expansion of macro ‘__le16_to_cpu’ > 91 | #define le16_to_cpu __le16_to_cpu > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ > fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c:86:16: note: in expansion of macro ‘ih_item_len’ > 86 | RFALSE(ih_item_len(ih) + IH_SIZE != -tb->insert_size[0], > | ^~~~~~~~~~~ > fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c: In function ‘do_balance_starts’: > fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c:1800:16: error: implicit declaration of function ‘check_before_balancing’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > 1800 | RFALSE(check_before_balancing(tb), "PAP-12340: locked buffers in TB"); > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > fs/reiserfs/reiserfs.h:919:54: note: in definition of macro ‘RFALSE’ > 919 | #define RFALSE( cond, format, args... ) do { (void) (cond); } while( 0 ) > | ^~~~ > cc1: some warnings being treated as errors > make[7]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:244: fs/reiserfs/do_balan.o] Error 1 > CC [M] fs/reiserfs/stree.o > In file included from fs/reiserfs/stree.c:15: > fs/reiserfs/stree.c: In function ‘reiserfs_delete_item’: > fs/reiserfs/stree.c:1283:24: error: ‘mode’ undeclared (first use in this function) > 1283 | RFALSE(mode != M_DELETE, "PAP-5320: mode must be M_DELETE"); > | ^~~~ > fs/reiserfs/reiserfs.h:919:54: note: in definition of macro ‘RFALSE’ > 919 | #define RFALSE( cond, format, args... ) do { (void) (cond); } while( 0 ) > | ^~~~ > fs/reiserfs/stree.c:1283:24: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in > 1283 | RFALSE(mode != M_DELETE, "PAP-5320: mode must be M_DELETE"); > | ^~~~ > fs/reiserfs/reiserfs.h:919:54: note: in definition of macro ‘RFALSE’ > 919 | #define RFALSE( cond, format, args... ) do { (void) (cond); } while( 0 ) > | ^~~~ > > Last time it compiled, but now it expects variables in (void)(cond) expressions to be defined. > > I have try to fix those warnings, submitting the patch for review: Yeah, this looks ok to me. Honza > > -------------------><--------------------------------------- > diff --git a/fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c b/fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c > index 5129efc6f2e6..c8fa3d71ef63 100644 > --- a/fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c > +++ b/fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c > @@ -81,11 +81,11 @@ static void balance_leaf_when_delete_del(struct tree_balance *tb) > struct buffer_info bi; > #ifdef CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK > struct item_head *ih = item_head(tbS0, item_pos); > -#endif > > RFALSE(ih_item_len(ih) + IH_SIZE != -tb->insert_size[0], > "vs-12013: mode Delete, insert size %d, ih to be deleted %h", > -tb->insert_size[0], ih); > +#endif > > buffer_info_init_tbS0(tb, &bi); > leaf_delete_items(&bi, 0, item_pos, 1, -1); > @@ -1797,8 +1797,8 @@ static inline void do_balance_starts(struct tree_balance *tb) > print_tb(flag, PATH_LAST_POSITION(tb->tb_path), > tb->tb_path->pos_in_item, tb, "check"); > */ > - RFALSE(check_before_balancing(tb), "PAP-12340: locked buffers in TB"); > #ifdef CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK > + RFALSE(check_before_balancing(tb), "PAP-12340: locked buffers in TB"); > REISERFS_SB(tb->tb_sb)->cur_tb = tb; > #endif > } > diff --git a/fs/reiserfs/reiserfs.h b/fs/reiserfs/reiserfs.h > index f0e1f29f20ee..027e64853710 100644 > --- a/fs/reiserfs/reiserfs.h > +++ b/fs/reiserfs/reiserfs.h > @@ -916,7 +916,7 @@ do { \ > #if defined( CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK ) > #define RFALSE(cond, format, args...) __RASSERT(!(cond), "!(" #cond ")", format, ##args) > #else > -#define RFALSE( cond, format, args... ) do {;} while( 0 ) > +#define RFALSE( cond, format, args... ) do { (void) (cond); } while( 0 ) > #endif > > #define CONSTF __attribute_const__ > diff --git a/fs/reiserfs/stree.c b/fs/reiserfs/stree.c > index 5faf702f8d15..eed1a461169e 100644 > --- a/fs/reiserfs/stree.c > +++ b/fs/reiserfs/stree.c > @@ -1280,7 +1280,9 @@ int reiserfs_delete_item(struct reiserfs_transaction_handle *th, > &del_size, > max_reiserfs_offset(inode)); > > +#ifdef CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK > RFALSE(mode != M_DELETE, "PAP-5320: mode must be M_DELETE"); > +#endif > > copy_item_head(&s_ih, tp_item_head(path)); > s_del_balance.insert_size[0] = del_size; > -- > > Thanks. > > Best regards, > Mirsad Todorovac > -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR