[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250422132023.GG2843373@horms.kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 14:20:23 +0100
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Justin Lai <justinlai0215@...ltek.com>
Cc: kuba@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
pabeni@...hat.com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
pkshih@...ltek.com, larry.chiu@...ltek.com,
kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3 1/3] rtase: Modify the condition used to detect
overflow in rtase_calc_time_mitigation
On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 04:56:57PM +0800, Justin Lai wrote:
> Fix the following compile error reported by the kernel test
> robot by modifying the condition used to detect overflow in
> rtase_calc_time_mitigation.
>
> In file included from include/linux/mdio.h:10:0,
> from drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/rtase/rtase_main.c:58:
> In function 'u16_encode_bits',
> inlined from 'rtase_calc_time_mitigation.constprop' at drivers/net/
> ethernet/realtek/rtase/rtase_main.c:1915:13,
> inlined from 'rtase_init_software_variable.isra.41' at drivers/net/
> ethernet/realtek/rtase/rtase_main.c:1961:13,
> inlined from 'rtase_init_one' at drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/
> rtase/rtase_main.c:2111:2:
> >> include/linux/bitfield.h:178:3: error: call to '__field_overflow'
> declared with attribute error: value doesn't fit into mask
> __field_overflow(); \
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> include/linux/bitfield.h:198:2: note: in expansion of macro
> '____MAKE_OP'
> ____MAKE_OP(u##size,u##size,,)
> ^~~~~~~~~~~
> include/linux/bitfield.h:200:1: note: in expansion of macro
> '__MAKE_OP'
> __MAKE_OP(16)
> ^~~~~~~~~
>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202503182158.nkAlbJWX-lkp@intel.com/
> Fixes: a36e9f5cfe9e ("rtase: Add support for a pci table in this module")
> Signed-off-by: Justin Lai <justinlai0215@...ltek.com>
Hi Justin,
FWIIW, I note that this problem is reported by GCC 7.5.0 on sparc64 but not
by GCC 14.2.0. And I think that is because in the end the values passed to
u16_encode_bits (line 1915 in the trace above) are the same with and
without this patch. That is to say, this the compiler error above is a
false positive of sorts.
But I believe GCC 7.5.0 is a supported compiler version for sparc64.
And this does result in an error, without W=1 or any other extra KCFLAGS
set. So I agree this is appropriate to treat as a fix for net.
And in any case, fix or no fix, it seems nice to limit the scope of
the initialisation of msb.
Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists