On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 07:06:04AM +0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> [ Adding some subsystem maintainers ]
>
> On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 10:06 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > But hopefully most cases are just "people haven't cared enough" and
> > > easily fixed.
> >
> > We'll see. For my testbed I disabled the new configuration flag
> > for the time being because its primary focus is boot tests, and
> > there won't be any boot tests if images fail to build.
>
> Sure, reasonable.
>
> I've checked a few of the build errors by doing the appropriate cross
> compiles, and it doesn't seem bad - but it does seem like we have a
> number of really pointless long-standing warnings that should have
> been fixed long ago.
>
> For example, looking at sparc64, there are several build errors due to
> those warnings now being fatal:
>
> - drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c:386
>
> This is a type mismatch error. It looks like __fls() on sparc64
> returns 'int'. And the ttm_pool.c code assumes it returns 'unsigned
> long'.
>
> Oddly enough, the very line after that line does "min_t(unsigned
> int" to get the types in line.
>
> So the immediate reason is "sparc64 is different". But the deeper
> reason seems to be that ttm_pool.c has odd type assumptions. But that
> warning should have been fixed long ago, either way.
>
> Christian/Huang? I get the feeling that both lines in that file
> should use the min_t(). Hmm?
Shall we align the return type like __fls() on all the arches?
But it looks OK for me to change min to min_t() here as well, I can file a
patch to the update:
- for (order = min(MAX_ORDER - 1UL, __fls(num_pages)); num_pages;
+ for (order = min_t(unsigned int, MAX_ORDER - 1UL, __fls(num_pages)); num_pages;
Christian, what's your opinion?
Thanks,
Ray
>
> - drivers/input/joystick/analog.c:160
>
> #warning Precise timer not defined for this architecture.
>
> Unfortunate. I suspect that warning just has to be removed. It has
> never caused anything to be fixed, it's old to the point of predating
> the git history. Dmitry?
>
> - at least a couple of stringop-overread errors. Attached is a
> possible for for one of them.
>
> The stringop overread is odd, because another one of them is
>
> fs/qnx4/dir.c: In function ‘qnx4_readdir’:
> fs/qnx4/dir.c:51:32: error: ‘strnlen’ specified bound 48 exceeds
> source size 16 [-Werror=stringop-overread]
> 51 | size = strnlen(de->di_fname, size);
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> but I'm not seeing why that one happens on sparc64, but not on arm64
> or x86-64. There doesn't seem to be anything architecture-specific
> anywhere in that area.
>
> Funky.
>
> Davem - attached patch compiles cleanly for me, but I'm not sure it's
> necessarily the right thing to do, and I didn't check the code
> generation. Maybe it screws up. Can somebody test on sparc64 and
> perhaps think about it more than I did?
>
> Linus
> arch/sparc/kernel/mdesc.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/sparc/kernel/mdesc.c b/arch/sparc/kernel/mdesc.c
> index 8e645ddac58e..30f171b7b00c 100644
> --- a/arch/sparc/kernel/mdesc.c
> +++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/mdesc.c
> @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ struct mdesc_hdr {
> u32 node_sz; /* node block size */
> u32 name_sz; /* name block size */
> u32 data_sz; /* data block size */
> + char data[];
> } __attribute__((aligned(16)));
>
> struct mdesc_elem {
> @@ -612,7 +613,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(mdesc_get_node_info);
>
> static struct mdesc_elem *node_block(struct mdesc_hdr *mdesc)
> {
> - return (struct mdesc_elem *) (mdesc + 1);
> + return (struct mdesc_elem *) mdesc->data;
> }
>
> static void *name_block(struct mdesc_hdr *mdesc)
