On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 11:49:17AM +0300, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyu...@google.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 5:52 PM, kbuild test robot
> >> kernel/locking/qspinlock.c:418:22: sparse: incorrect type in assignment
> >> (different modifiers) @@ expected struct mcs_spinlock *prev @@ got
> >> struct struct mcs_spinlock *prev @@
> >> kernel/locking/qspinlock.c:418:22: expected struct mcs_spinlock *prev
> >> kernel/locking/qspinlock.c:418:22: got struct mcs_spinlock [pure] *
> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 283 static __always_inline unsigned
> >> long
> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 284 cmpxchg_size(volatile void *ptr,
> >> unsigned long old, unsigned long new, int size)
> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 285 {
> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 286 switch (size) {
> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 287 case 1:
> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 @288 return
> >> arch_cmpxchg((u8 *)ptr, (u8)old, (u8)new);
> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 289 case 2:
> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 290 return
> >> arch_cmpxchg((u16 *)ptr, (u16)old, (u16)new);
> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 291 case 4:
> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 292 return
> >> arch_cmpxchg((u32 *)ptr, (u32)old, (u32)new);
> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 293 case 8:
> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 294
> >> BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(unsigned long) != 8);
> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 295 return
> >> arch_cmpxchg((u64 *)ptr, (u64)old, (u64)new);
> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 296 }
> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 297 BUILD_BUG();
> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 298 return 0;
> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 299 }
> >> b06ed71a6 Dmitry Vyukov 2018-01-29 300
> It seems that this is due to this guy:
>
> static __always_inline int trylock_clear_pending(struct qspinlock *lock)
> {
> struct __qspinlock *l = (void *)lock;
>
> return !READ_ONCE(l->locked) &&
> (cmpxchg_acquire(&l->locked_pending, _Q_PENDING_VAL,
> _Q_LOCKED_VAL) == _Q_PENDING_VAL);
> }
>
> _Q_PENDING_VAL is 0x100. However, locked_pending is 2 bytes. So it
> seems that compiler checks all switch cases, this inevitably will lead
> to such warnings.
>
> Any suggestion on how to resolve this? Leave as is?
I'm not sure I understand what it thinks is wrong. Can't we fix sparse
to not be stupid? The actual compilers don't seem to a have a problem
with this.
> Off the top of my head I can think of the following solution:
>
> switch (size) {
> case 1:
> return arch_cmpxchg((u8 *)ptr, (u8)(old * (size !=
> 1)), (u8)(new * (size != 1)));
> case 2:
> return arch_cmpxchg((u16 *)ptr, (u16)(old * (size !=
> 2)), (u16)(new * (size != 2)));
>
> But it's too ugly.
Yes agreed, that's horrendous.
