[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250529103106.GM1484967@horms.kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 11:31:06 +0100
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Subbaraya Sundeep <sbhatta@...vell.com>
Cc: andrew+netdev@...n.ch, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, saikrishnag@...vell.com,
gakula@...vell.com, hkelam@...vell.com, sgoutham@...vell.com,
lcherian@...vell.com, bbhushan2@...vell.com, jerinj@...vell.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net v3 PATCH] octeontx2-pf: Avoid typecasts by simplifying
otx2_atomic64_add macro
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 07:04:48AM +0000, Subbaraya Sundeep wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On 2025-05-28 at 15:03:33, Simon Horman (horms@...nel.org) wrote:
> > On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 10:10:42AM +0530, Subbaraya Sundeep wrote:
> > > Just because otx2_atomic64_add is using u64 pointer as argument
> > > all callers has to typecast __iomem void pointers which inturn
> > > causing sparse warnings. Fix those by changing otx2_atomic64_add
> > > argument to void pointer.
> > >
> > > Fixes: caa2da34fd25 ("octeontx2-pf: Initialize and config queues")
> > > Signed-off-by: Subbaraya Sundeep <sbhatta@...vell.com>
> > > ---
> > > v3:
> > > Make otx2_atomic64_add as nop for architectures other than ARM64
> > > to fix sparse warnings
> > > v2:
> > > Fixed x86 build error of void pointer dereference reported by
> > > kernel test robot
> >
> > Sorry, I seem to have made some some comments on v2 after v3 was posted.
> >
> > 1) I'm wondering if you considered changing the type of the 2nd parameter
> > of otx2_atomic64_add to u64 __iomem * and, correspondingly, the type of
>
> My intention is to fix sparse warnings (no __force) and avoid typecasts
> so that code is correct and looks cleaner. If I change 2nd param of
> otx2_atomics64_add as u64 __iomem * then I still have to use
> __force to make sparse happy. This way only otx2_atomic64_add looks odd
> internally with assembly stuff.
Thanks. Based on your remarks above I agree this is a good approach.
>
> > the local variables updated by this patch. Perhaps that isn't so clean
> > for some reason. But if it can be done cleanly it does seem slightly
> > nicer to me.
> >
> > 2) I wonder if this is more of a clean-up for net-next (once it re-opens,
> > no Fixes tag) than a fix.
> >
> Sure. Will post as net-next material later.
Again, thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists