linux-kernel - RE: Clang warning in drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu

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]

Message-ID: <SN6PR12MB280017BDAB60B61088B221C287410@SN6PR12MB2800.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Mar 2019 01:31:27 +0000
From:   "Pan, Xinhui" <Xinhui.Pan@....com>
To:     Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
        "Deucher, Alexander" <Alexander.Deucher@....com>,
        "Koenig, Christian" <Christian.Koenig@....com>,
        "Zhou, David(ChunMing)" <David1.Zhou@....com>
CC:     "amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org" <amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com" 
        <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>
Subject: RE: Clang warning in drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ras.c

these two enumerated types are same for now. both of them might change in the future.

I have not used clang, but would  .block_id =  (int)head->block fix your warning? If such change is acceptable, I can make one then.

Thanks
xinhui


-----Original Message-----
From: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com> 
Sent: 2019年3月20日 8:54
To: Deucher, Alexander <Alexander.Deucher@....com>; Koenig, Christian <Christian.Koenig@....com>; Zhou, David(ChunMing) <David1.Zhou@....com>; Pan, Xinhui <Xinhui.Pan@....com>
Cc: amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org; dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com
Subject: Clang warning in drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ras.c

Hi all,

The introduction of this file in commit dbd249c24427 ("drm/amdgpu: add amdgpu_ras.c to support ras (v2)") introduces the following Clang
warnings:

drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ras.c:544:23: warning: implicit conversion from enumeration type 'enum amdgpu_ras_block' to different enumeration type 'enum ta_ras_block' [-Wenum-conversion]
                        .block_id =  head->block,
                                     ~~~~~~^~~~~
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ras.c:545:24: warning: implicit conversion from enumeration type 'enum amdgpu_ras_error_type' to different enumeration type 'enum ta_ras_error_type' [-Wenum-conversion]
                        .error_type = head->type,
                                      ~~~~~~^~~~
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ras.c:549:23: warning: implicit conversion from enumeration type 'enum amdgpu_ras_block' to different enumeration type 'enum ta_ras_block' [-Wenum-conversion]
                        .block_id =  head->block,
                                     ~~~~~~^~~~~
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ras.c:550:24: warning: implicit conversion from enumeration type 'enum amdgpu_ras_error_type' to different enumeration type 'enum ta_ras_error_type' [-Wenum-conversion]
                        .error_type = head->type,
                                      ~~~~~~^~~~
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ras.c:650:26: warning: implicit conversion from enumeration type 'enum amdgpu_ras_block' to different enumeration type 'enum ta_ras_block' [-Wenum-conversion]
                .block_id = info->head.block,
                            ~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ras.c:651:35: warning: implicit conversion from enumeration type 'enum amdgpu_ras_error_type' to different enumeration type 'enum ta_ras_error_type' [-Wenum-conversion]
                .inject_error_type = info->head.type,
                                     ~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~
6 warnings generated.

Normally, I would sent a fix for this myself but I am not entirely sure why these two enumerated types exist when one would do since they have the same values minus the prefix. In fact, the ta_ras_{block,error_type} values are never used aside from being defined. Some clarification would be appreciated.

Thank you,
Nathan