On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 2:13 AM Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2026, at 09:53, Petr Mladek wrote: > > On Wed 2026-02-04 14:26:23, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> Fixes: 6b2c1e30ad68 ("seq_file: Mark binary printing functions with > >> __printf() attribute") > >> Fixes: 7bf819aa992f ("vsnprintf: Mark binary printing functions with > >> __printf() attribute") > > > > From the commit message, it is not obvious why reverting these commits > > won't bring back the warnings in the modified functions. > > > > My understanding is that the warnings won't get back thanks to > > the commit bd67c1c3c353b6560 ("vsnprintf: Silence false positive > > GCC warning for va_format()") as explained by the original cover > > letter, see > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/#t > > > > It would be worth to mentionin this in the commit message. > > Unfortunately, I have not been able to reproduce the original > warnings at all. The va_format() warning and the patch to > silence that look entirely unrelated here, that was just the > compiler incorrectly identifying a function that does not even > take a format argument. > > I'm sure some other intermediate change managed to shut up > the warnings, but I don't know which one. My best guess would > be that 938df695e98d ("vsprintf: associate the format state with > the format pointer") made gcc no longer warn about bstr_printf(), > but that predates Andy's patch and I can't easily revert it for > testing. Checking out a kernel before those patches does have > the warning on va_format() but not on the other ones. > > >> Link: > >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAADnVQK3eZp3yp35OUx8j1UBsQFhgsn5-4VReqAJ=68paak...@mail.gmail.com/ > >> Closes: > >> https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/[email protected]/ > >> Reported-by: kernel test robot <[email protected]> > >> Suggested-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]> > >> Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]> > >> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> For reference, three additional patches are required before we can drop > >> the Makefile.warn line that currently hides these warnings: > >> > >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/ > >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/ > >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/ > >> > >> Tested using randconfig builds on arm/arm64/x86 > >> --- > >> include/linux/seq_file.h | 1 - > >> include/linux/string.h | 4 ++-- > >> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > Otherwise, the change looks good to me. Feel free to use, > > ideally with the updated commit message: > > > > Acked-by: Petr Mladek <[email protected]> > > > > I wonder who should take this patch. Should it go via > > printk/bpf/tracing or another tree? > > Does anyone has any preference, please? > > I think your tree makes most sense here, but I have no strong > preference.
As long as it makes into the upcoming merge window any tree is fine. Let's go via printk.
