Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Oct 2022 10:16:01 -0700 | From | Yury Norov <> | Subject | Re: [: [cpumask] b9a7ecc71f: WARNING:at_include/linux/cpumask.h:#__is_kernel_percpu_address] |
| |
> Hi Yury, > > I just wanted to report that the warning fires when doing > 'cat /proc/cpuinfo' on at least x86 and riscv. I don't think > those are false positives. I'm guessing a patch should be > something like the following diff. If you haven't already > addressed this and I'm not off in left field, then I guess > we should integrate it into your series. > > Thanks, > drew
Hi Andrew,
Can you please send it as a patch with a description?
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c > index 4aa8cd749441..4c5dfa230d4b 100644 > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c > @@ -166,9 +166,12 @@ static void print_mmu(struct seq_file *f) > > static void *c_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *pos) > { > - *pos = cpumask_next(*pos - 1, cpu_online_mask); > - if ((*pos) < nr_cpu_ids) > - return (void *)(uintptr_t)(1 + *pos); > + if (*pos < nr_cpu_ids) { > + *pos = cpumask_next(*pos - 1, cpu_online_mask); > + if ((*pos) < nr_cpu_ids)
Braces around *pos are not needed.
> + return (void *)(uintptr_t)(1 + *pos); > + } > + > return NULL; > } > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/proc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/proc.c > index 099b6f0d96bd..2ea614e78e28 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/proc.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/proc.c > @@ -153,9 +153,12 @@ static int show_cpuinfo(struct seq_file *m, void *v) > > static void *c_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *pos) > { > - *pos = cpumask_next(*pos - 1, cpu_online_mask); > - if ((*pos) < nr_cpu_ids) > - return &cpu_data(*pos); > + if (*pos < nr_cpu_ids) { > + *pos = cpumask_next(*pos - 1, cpu_online_mask); > + if ((*pos) < nr_cpu_ids)
Here too.
Thanks, Yury
> + return &cpu_data(*pos); > + } > + > return NULL; > } > > > > > > I suspect that to avoid any automation noise, you should just rebase > > > so that the fixes come first. Otherwise we'll end up wasting a lot of > > > time on the noise. > > > > > > This is not that different from introducing new buil;d-time warnings: > > > the things they point out need to be fixed before the warning can be > > > integrated, or it causes bisection problems. > > > > OK, I'll reorder the patches. Thanks for your help. > >
| |