Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] io: Fix return type of _inb and _inl | From | John Garry <> | Date | Mon, 27 Jul 2020 09:28:25 +0100 |
| |
On 27/07/2020 09:04, Arnd Bergmann wrote:> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 2:53 PM Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 12:00:37PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 6:14 AM Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> The return type of functions _inb, _inw and _inl are all u16 which looks >>>> wrong. This patch makes them u8, u16 and u32 respectively. >>>> >>>> The original commit text for these does not indicate that these should >>>> be all forced to u16. >>> >>> Is it in alight with all architectures? that support this interface natively? >>> >>> (Return value is arch-dependent AFAIU, so it might actually return >>> 16-bit for byte read, but I agree that this is weird for 32-bit value. >>> I think you have elaborate more in the commit message) >> >> Well, this is the generic io code, at least these api's appear to not be different >> for each architecture. The output read by the architecture dependant code i.e. >> __raw_readb() below is getting is placed into a u8. So I think the output of >> the function will be u8. >> >> static inline u8 _inb(unsigned long addr) >> { >> u8 val; >> >> __io_pbr(); >> val = __raw_readb(PCI_IOBASE + addr); >> __io_par(val); >> return val; >> } >> >> I can expand the commit text, but I would like to get some comments from the >> original author to confirm if this is an issue. > > I think your original version is fine, this was clearly just a typo and I've > applied your fix now and will forward it to Linus in the next few days, > giving John the chance to add his Ack or further comments. > > Thanks a lot for spotting it and sending a fix.
Thanks Arnd.
Yeah, these looks like copy+paste errors on my part:
Reviewed-by: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
I'll give this patch a spin, but not expecting any differences (since original seems ok).
Note that kbuild robot also reported this: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202007140549.J7X9BVPT%25lkp@intel.com/
Extract:
include/asm-generic/io.h:521:22: sparse: sparse: incorrect type in argument 1 (different base types) @@ expected unsigned int [usertype] value @@ got restricted __le32 [usertype] @@ include/asm-generic/io.h:521:22: sparse: expected unsigned int [usertype] value include/asm-generic/io.h:521:22: sparse: got restricted __le32 [usertype]
But they look like issues which were in the existing code. I tried to recreate to verify any change, but trying to manually upgrade glibc busted my machine :(
Thanks, John
|  |