[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1804261450020.1584@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 14:50:25 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: vmemmap and vmalloc base addressess are usngined
longs
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2018, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>
> > > > > Commits 9b46a051e4 ("x86/mm: Initialize vmemmap_base at boot-time") and
> > > > > a7412546d8 ("x86/mm: Adjust vmalloc base and size at boot-time") lost the
> > > > > type information for __VMALLOC_BASE_L4, __VMALLOC_BASE_L5,
> > > > > __VMEMMAP_BASE_L4 and __VMEMMAP_BASE_L5 constants.
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's declare them explicitly unsigned long again.
> > > >
> > > > It is just cosmetics, right? I mean these literals are 'unsigned long'
> > > > anyway.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I can't imagine this particular case leading to any overflow
> > > scenario, as the literal is big enough to be automatically treated as
> > > unsigned long by the compiler, but it shuts up sparse which treats this as
> > > a generic case (where the missing UL might be a problem), and totally
> > > pollutes the build output.
> > >
> > > Either we put the 'UL' there, or teach sparse about figuring out the
> > > 'closer bigger fitting type' for hexadecimal literals, which might be more
> > > tricky.
> >
> > I don't have a problem with the patch:
> >
> > Acked-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
>
> ping, please?
>
> sparse build is still noisy like hell :/
/me goes to dig it out in the pile ....
Powered by blists - more mailing lists