linux-kernel - Re: [-next July 21] s390 build failure : kernel/workqueue.o

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:25:57 +0200
From:	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Sachin Sant <sachinp@...ibm.com>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [-next July 21] s390 build failure : kernel/workqueue.o

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 17:57:09 +0200
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> On 07/21/2010 12:40 PM, Sachin Sant wrote:
> > Today's next fails to build on a s390 box with
> > 
> >  CC      kernel/workqueue.o
> > kernel/workqueue.c: In function 'init_workqueues':
> > kernel/workqueue.c:3525: error: negative width in bit-field '<anonymous>'
> > make[1]: *** [kernel/workqueue.o] Error 1
> > 
> > Yesterday's next was good.
> > The following patches added/changed the BUILD_BUG_ON() statement.
> > 
> > bdbc5dd7de5d07d6c9d3536e598956165a031d4c
> >        workqueue: prepare for WQ_UNBOUND implementation
> > 7a22ad757ec75186ad43a5b4670fa7423ee8f480
> >         workqueue: carry cpu number in work data once execution starts
> > 
> > I have gcc version 4.3.2 installed on the system.
> 
> Hmmm... that's surprising.  Can you please attach the .config?

The BUILD_BUG_ON line gets expanded to:

((void)(sizeof(struct { int:-!!(WORK_CPU_LAST << WORK_STRUCT_FLAG_BITS >= 0x0UL); })));

WORK_CPU_LAST is:

enum {
 ..
 WORK_CPU_NONE = 32 + 1,
 WORK_CPU_LAST = WORK_CPU_NONE,
 ..
};

WORK_STRUCT_FLAG_BITS is:

 WORK_STRUCT_COLOR_SHIFT = 2,
 WORK_STRUCT_COLOR_BITS = 4,
 WORK_STRUCT_FLAG_BITS = WORK_STRUCT_COLOR_SHIFT +
      WORK_STRUCT_COLOR_BITS,

which boils it down to

((void)(sizeof(struct { int:-!!(33 << 6 >= 0x0UL); })));

gcc doesn't like this construct.

-- 
blue skies,
   Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/