[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <53d194db-c7d4-4026-9fbb-3b41de545849@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 16:14:29 +0200
From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
To: "David Hildenbrand" <david@...hat.com>,
"Miguel Ojeda" <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
"Huacai Chen" <chenhuacai@...nel.org>, "WANG Xuerui" <kernel@...0n.name>
Cc: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Ryan Roberts" <ryan.roberts@....com>,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev,
clang-built-linux <llvm@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: ./include/asm-generic/tlb.h:629:10: error: parameter 'ptep' set but not
used
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024, at 15:51, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 16.04.24 12:26, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>> Hi David, Arnd, LoongArch,
>>
>> In a linux-next defconfig LLVM=1 build today I got:
>>
>> ./include/asm-generic/tlb.h:629:10: error: parameter 'ptep' set
>> but not used [-Werror,-Wunused-but-set-parameter]
>> 629 | pte_t *ptep, unsigned int nr, unsigned long address)
>> | ^
>>
>> Indeed, in loongarch, `__tlb_remove_tlb_entry` does not do anything.
>> This seems the same that Arnd reported for arm64:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240221154549.2026073-1-arnd@kernel.org/
>>
>> So perhaps the loongarch's one should also be changed into an static inline?
>
> 4d5bf0b6183f79ea361dd506365d2a471270735c is already part of v6.9-rc1. How come
> we see that only now on linux-next?
Andrew merged my patch to enable -Wextra yesterday, and it appears
that this one fell through the cracks with my testing, either I
missed the combination of loongarch with clang, or I last tested
it before your patches got merged.
> I assume we should see the same on upstream Linux with LLVM=1, correct?
On upstream, it only shows up with 'make W=1'.
> If so, we should likely just drop that completely and rely on the
> asm-generic one:
>
> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/tlb.h
> b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/tlb.h
> index da7a3b5b9374a..e071f5e9e8580 100644
> --- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/tlb.h
> +++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/tlb.h
> @@ -132,8 +132,6 @@ static __always_inline void invtlb_all(u32 op, u32
> info, u64 addr)
> );
> }
>
> -#define __tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, ptep, address) do { } while (0)
> -
> static void tlb_flush(struct mmu_gather *tlb);
Yes, this looks like the best solution, and I can confirm that this
addresses the warning on linux-next.
Tested-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists