On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 18:05:15 +0200 Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 02/04/2019 18.00, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 11:11:01 +0000 > > Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >> The GCC 9 compiler complains about many places in s390 code > >> that take the address of members of the 'struct SCHIB' which > >> is marked packed: > >> > >> hw/vfio/ccw.c: In function ‘vfio_ccw_io_notifier_handler’: > >> hw/vfio/ccw.c:133:15: warning: taking address of packed member of ‘struct > >> SCHIB’ may result in an unaligned pointer value \ > >> [-Waddress-of-packed-member] > >> 133 | SCSW *s = &sch->curr_status.scsw; > >> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> hw/vfio/ccw.c:134:15: warning: taking address of packed member of ‘struct > >> SCHIB’ may result in an unaligned pointer value \ > >> [-Waddress-of-packed-member] > >> 134 | PMCW *p = &sch->curr_status.pmcw; > >> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> > >> ...snip many more... > >> > >> Almost all of these are just done for convenience to avoid > >> typing out long variable/field names when referencing struct > >> members. We can get most of this convenience by taking the > >> address of the 'struct SCHIB' instead, avoiding triggering > >> the compiler warnings. > >> > >> In a couple of places we copy via a local variable which is > >> a technique already applied elsewhere in s390 code for this > >> problem. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> > >> --- > >> hw/vfio/ccw.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------- > >> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > > > > I'm currently in the process of queuing this and the other three s390x > > fixes, but I'm inclined to do so for 4.1 (it feels a bit late in the > > cycle for 4.0.) > > > > Other opinions? > > IMHO it would be nice to get rid of the compiler warnings for the > release. Multiple people reviewed the patches, so I think it should > still be fine to include them. Still need to run my smoke tests, but I can send a pull req tomorrow for -rc3.
