Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] maple_tree: add a test checking storing null

[Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 11:29:39AM -0400, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
>* Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com> [241022 19:32]:
>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 01:37:50AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>> >Hi Wei,
>> >
>> >kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:
>> >
>> >[auto build test WARNING on akpm-mm/mm-nonmm-unstable]
>> >[also build test WARNING on akpm-mm/mm-everything linus/master v6.12-rc4 next-20241022]
>> >[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
>> >And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
>> >https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]
>> >
>> >url:    https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Wei-Yang/maple_tree-print-empty-for-an-empty-tree-on-mt_dump/20241019-103832
>> >base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git mm-nonmm-unstable
>> >patch link:    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241019023716.4516-6-richard.weiyang%40gmail.com
>> >patch subject: [PATCH v4 5/5] maple_tree: add a test checking storing null
>> >config: x86_64-randconfig-123-20241022 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20241023/202410230105.UApdwd9S-lkp@intel.com/config)
>> >compiler: clang version 18.1.8 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project 3b5b5c1ec4a3095ab096dd780e84d7ab81f3d7ff)
>> >reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20241023/202410230105.UApdwd9S-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
>> >
>> >If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
>> >the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
>> >| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
>> >| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202410230105.UApdwd9S-lkp@intel.com/
>> >
>> >sparse warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>)
>> >>> lib/test_maple_tree.c:1456:9: sparse: sparse: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces) @@     expected void const *entry @@     got void [noderef] __rcu *ma_root @@
>> >   lib/test_maple_tree.c:1456:9: sparse:     expected void const *entry
>> >   lib/test_maple_tree.c:1456:9: sparse:     got void [noderef] __rcu *ma_root
>> >>> lib/test_maple_tree.c:1456:9: sparse: sparse: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces) @@     expected void const *entry @@     got void [noderef] __rcu *ma_root @@
>> >   lib/test_maple_tree.c:1456:9: sparse:     expected void const *entry
>> >   lib/test_maple_tree.c:1456:9: sparse:     got void [noderef] __rcu *ma_root
>> >   lib/test_maple_tree.c:1468:9: sparse: sparse: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces) @@     expected void const *entry @@     got void [noderef] __rcu *ma_root @@
>> >   lib/test_maple_tree.c:1468:9: sparse:     expected void const *entry
>> >   lib/test_maple_tree.c:1468:9: sparse:     got void [noderef] __rcu *ma_root
>> >   lib/test_maple_tree.c:1468:9: sparse: sparse: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces) @@     expected void const *entry @@     got void [noderef] __rcu *ma_root @@
>> >   lib/test_maple_tree.c:1468:9: sparse:     expected void const *entry
>> >   lib/test_maple_tree.c:1468:9: sparse:     got void [noderef] __rcu *ma_root
>> >
>> >vim +1456 lib/test_maple_tree.c
>> >
>> >  1389	
>> >  1390	static noinline void __init check_store_null(struct maple_tree *mt)
>> >  1391	{
>> >  1392		MA_STATE(mas, mt, 0, ULONG_MAX);
>> >  1393	
>> >  1394		/*
>> >  1395		 * Store NULL at range [0, ULONG_MAX] to an empty tree should result
>> >  1396		 * in an empty tree
>> >  1397		 */
>> >  1398		mt_init_flags(mt, MT_FLAGS_ALLOC_RANGE);
>> >  1399		mas_lock(&mas);
>> >  1400		mas_store_gfp(&mas, NULL, GFP_KERNEL);
>> >  1401		MT_BUG_ON(mt, !mtree_empty(mt));
>> >  1402		mas_unlock(&mas);
>> >  1403		mtree_destroy(mt);
>> >  1404	
>> >  1405		/*
>> >  1406		 * Store NULL at any range to an empty tree should result in an empty
>> >  1407		 * tree
>> >  1408		 */
>> >  1409		mt_init_flags(mt, MT_FLAGS_ALLOC_RANGE);
>> >  1410		mas_lock(&mas);
>> >  1411		mas_set_range(&mas, 3, 10);
>> >  1412		mas_store_gfp(&mas, NULL, GFP_KERNEL);
>> >  1413		MT_BUG_ON(mt, !mtree_empty(mt));
>> >  1414		mas_unlock(&mas);
>> >  1415		mtree_destroy(mt);
>> >  1416	
>> >  1417		/*
>> >  1418		 * Store NULL at range [0, ULONG_MAX] to a single entry tree should
>> >  1419		 * result in an empty tree
>> >  1420		 */
>> >  1421		mt_init_flags(mt, MT_FLAGS_ALLOC_RANGE);
>> >  1422		mas_lock(&mas);
>> >  1423		mas_set(&mas, 0);
>> >  1424		mas_store_gfp(&mas, &mas, GFP_KERNEL);
>> >  1425		mas_set_range(&mas, 0, ULONG_MAX);
>> >  1426		mas_store_gfp(&mas, NULL, GFP_KERNEL);
>> >  1427		MT_BUG_ON(mt, !mtree_empty(mt));
>> >  1428		mas_unlock(&mas);
>> >  1429		mtree_destroy(mt);
>> >  1430	
>> >  1431		/*
>> >  1432		 * Store NULL at range [0, n] to a single entry tree should
>> >  1433		 * result in an empty tree
>> >  1434		 */
>> >  1435		mt_init_flags(mt, MT_FLAGS_ALLOC_RANGE);
>> >  1436		mas_lock(&mas);
>> >  1437		mas_set(&mas, 0);
>> >  1438		mas_store_gfp(&mas, &mas, GFP_KERNEL);
>> >  1439		mas_set_range(&mas, 0, 5);
>> >  1440		mas_store_gfp(&mas, NULL, GFP_KERNEL);
>> >  1441		MT_BUG_ON(mt, !mtree_empty(mt));
>> >  1442		mas_unlock(&mas);
>> >  1443		mtree_destroy(mt);
>> >  1444	
>> >  1445		/*
>> >  1446		 * Store NULL at range [m, n] where m > 0 to a single entry tree
>> >  1447		 * should still be a single entry tree
>> >  1448		 */
>> >  1449		mt_init_flags(mt, MT_FLAGS_ALLOC_RANGE);
>> >  1450		mas_lock(&mas);
>> >  1451		mas_set(&mas, 0);
>> >  1452		mas_store_gfp(&mas, &mas, GFP_KERNEL);
>> >  1453		mas_set_range(&mas, 2, 5);
>> >  1454		mas_store_gfp(&mas, NULL, GFP_KERNEL);
>> >  1455		MT_BUG_ON(mt, mtree_empty(mt));
>> >> 1456		MT_BUG_ON(mt, xa_is_node(mt->ma_root));
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Will fix it to xa_is_node(mas_root(&mas)) in next version.
>
>By the looks of the bot output, there are quite a lot of existing cases
>of this in the test code.
>

Hi, Liam

Thanks for your review. I may not follow you.

I saw you add you RB. Do you prefer me to spin a new round with this adjusted
or the current version is fine?

>> 
>> 
>> >  1457		mas_unlock(&mas);
>> >  1458		mtree_destroy(mt);
>> >  1459	
>> >  1460		/*
>> >  1461		 * Store NULL at range [0, ULONG_MAX] to a tree with node should
>> >  1462		 * result in an empty tree
>> >  1463		 */
>> >  1464		mt_init_flags(mt, MT_FLAGS_ALLOC_RANGE);
>> >  1465		mas_lock(&mas);
>> >  1466		mas_set_range(&mas, 1, 3);
>> >  1467		mas_store_gfp(&mas, &mas, GFP_KERNEL);
>> >  1468		MT_BUG_ON(mt, !xa_is_node(mt->ma_root));
>> >  1469		mas_set_range(&mas, 0, ULONG_MAX);
>> >  1470		mas_store_gfp(&mas, NULL, GFP_KERNEL);
>> >  1471		MT_BUG_ON(mt, !mtree_empty(mt));
>> >  1472		mas_unlock(&mas);
>> >  1473		mtree_destroy(mt);
>> >  1474	}
>> >  1475	
>> >
>> >-- 
>> >0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
>> >https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki
>> 
>> -- 
>> Wei Yang
>> Help you, Help me

-- 
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me