[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a3ep7DFnMYnA7q5b-P8X7nd3TAz=t82011j8=koK3T08A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 10:49:04 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
To: Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@...com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@...il.dk>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Jon Lin <jon.lin@...k-chips.com>,
Chris Ruehl <chris.ruehl@...ys.com.hk>,
Alexander Kochetkov <al.kochet@...il.com>,
Johan Jonker <jbx6244@...il.com>,
Vincent Pelletier <plr.vincent@...il.com>,
linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC support"
<linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: rockchip: avoid objtool warning
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 9:16 AM 'Pratyush Yadav' via Clang Built Linux
<clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 25/02/21 01:55PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> >
> > Building this file with clang leads to a an unreachable code path
> > causing a warning from objtool:
> >
> > drivers/spi/spi-rockchip.o: warning: objtool: rockchip_spi_transfer_one()+0x2e0: sibling call from callable instruction with modified stack frame
> >
> > Use BUG() instead of unreachable() to avoid the undefined behavior
> > if it does happen.
> >
> > Fixes: 65498c6ae241 ("spi: rockchip: support 4bit words")
> > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> > ---
> > drivers/spi/spi-rockchip.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-rockchip.c b/drivers/spi/spi-rockchip.c
> > index 936ef54e0903..972beac1169a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/spi/spi-rockchip.c
> > +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-rockchip.c
> > @@ -521,7 +521,7 @@ static void rockchip_spi_config(struct rockchip_spi *rs,
> > * ctlr->bits_per_word_mask, so this shouldn't
> > * happen
> > */
> > - unreachable();
> > + BUG();
>
> checkpatch says:
>
> Avoid crashing the kernel - try using WARN_ON & recovery code rather
> than BUG() or BUG_ON()
>
> Which makes sense to me. This is not something bad enough to justify
> crashing the kernel.
I thought about rewriting it more thoroughly when I wrote the patch, but
couldn't come up with a good alternative, so I did the simplest change
in this direction, replacing the silent crash with a loud one.
Should we just dev_warn() and return instead, hoping that it won't do
more harm?
The backtrace from WARN_ON() probably doesn't help here.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists