[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230913183010.GA12423@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2023 20:30:10 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, oe-kbuild-all@...ts.linux.dev,
Alexey Gladkov <legion@...nel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] seqlock: change __seqprop() to return the function
pointer
On 09/14, kernel test robot wrote:
>
> Hi Oleg,
Hi kernel test robot, thank you very much.
> >> include/linux/u64_stats_sync.h:176:36: warning: passing argument 1 of '__seqprop_ptr' discards 'const' qualifier from pointer target type [-Wdiscarded-qualifiers]
Yes, a lot of seqcount_t helpers pass the "const seqcount_t *s" to
__seqprop_ptr(s) and this is wrong.
Before this patch __seqprop(s) did "(void *)(s)" and this masked the
problem.
I've updated __seqprop_##lockname##_ptr() for this reason, but didn't
notice that __seqprop_ptr() should be changed too.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists