On Thu 2026-02-05 07:58:10, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > 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.
OK. The commit will include link to this thread. It should be good enough ;-) > > > 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. OK, I have committed the patch into printk/linux.git, branch for-6.20. Best Regards, Petr
