Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Oct 2022 19:21:26 +0200 | From | Andrew Jones <> | Subject | Re: [: [cpumask] b9a7ecc71f: WARNING:at_include/linux/cpumask.h:#__is_kernel_percpu_address] |
| |
On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 10:16:01AM -0700, Yury Norov wrote: > > 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?
Will do. I'll send two patches, one for each arch.
> > > > > 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.
The braces were preexisting, but I'll drop them while indenting.
Thanks, drew
> > > + 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. > > >
| |