[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <353e5bbd-cdd1-f818-6a2f-9a7c800f9879@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 16:28:25 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [for-linus][PATCH 01/10] tracing: Suppress sparse warnings
triggered by is_signed_type()
On 8/23/22 18:49, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 5:09 PM Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org> wrote:
>>
>> I'm probably doing something wrong but even with sparse commit 658ee8e0f631
>> ("unrestricted values are unrestricted even after a cast") I see warnings
>> being triggered by users of the is_signed_type() macro, warnings that
>> disappear if I change the definition of the is_signed_type() macro into 0:
>
> That's the
>
>> It does require that kernel change to make
>>
>> #define is_signed_type(type) (((type)(-1)) <= (type)0)
>
> part I was talking about.
>
> So your kernel side patch looks fine, except I don't think you need
> the '__force' - the sparse patches in my tree should make sparse happy
> about casting '-1'.
>
> But I didn't do very much testing.
Hi Linus,
Can you take a look at the following report from the kernel test robot:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/202208250433.EVz5pZkB-lkp@intel.com/ ?
Do I see correctly that gcc reports a new warning for the above
definition of is_signed_type() with W=1? I'm not sure how to get rid of
that new gcc warning without reintroducing a sparse warning.
The tree that the kernel robot tested is available here:
https://github.com/bvanassche/linux/tree/tracing
Thanks,
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists