On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 12:19:37PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 01:04:46PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > Am 30.01.2024 um 11:30 hat Richard W.M. Jones geschrieben: > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 09:51:59AM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > > > Am 29.01.2024 um 19:53 hat Richard W.M. Jones geschrieben: > > > > > With GCC 14 the code failed to compile on i686 (and was wrong for any > > > > > version of GCC): > > > > > > > > > > ../block/blkio.c: In function ‘blkio_file_open’: > > > > > ../block/blkio.c:857:28: error: passing argument 3 of > > > > > ‘blkio_get_uint64’ from incompatible pointer type > > > > > [-Wincompatible-pointer-types] > > > > > 857 | &s->mem_region_alignment); > > > > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > | | > > > > > | size_t * {aka unsigned int *} > > > > > In file included from ../block/blkio.c:12: > > > > > /usr/include/blkio.h:49:67: note: expected ‘uint64_t *’ {aka ‘long > > > > > long unsigned int *’} but argument is of type ‘size_t *’ {aka > > > > > ‘unsigned int *’} > > > > > 49 | int blkio_get_uint64(struct blkio *b, const char *name, > > > > > uint64_t *value); > > > > > | > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Richard W.M. Jones <rjo...@redhat.com> > > > > > > > > Why not simply make BDRVBlkioState.mem_region_alignment a uint64_t > > > > instead of keeping it size_t and doing an additional conversion with > > > > a check that requires an #if (probably to avoid a warning on 64 bit > > > > hosts because the condition is never true)? > > > > > > The smaller change (attached) does work on i686, but this worries me a > > > little (although it doesn't give any error or warning): > > > > > > if (((uintptr_t)host | size) % s->mem_region_alignment) { > > > error_setg(errp, "unaligned buf %p with size %zu", host, size); > > > return BMRR_FAIL; > > > } > > > > I don't see the problem? The calculation will now be done in 64 bits > > even on a 32 bit host, but that seems fine to me. Is there a trap I'm > > missing? > > I guess not. Stefan, any comments on whether we need to worry about > huge mem-region-alignment? I'll post the updated patch as a new > message in a second.
An alignment of 32 or more bits is not required in any scenario that I'm aware of. Stefan
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature