Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/3] change some statistics to 64-bit

[Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>]

On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 01:32:24PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 17:34:59 +0100 Simon Horman wrote:
> > > Simon has posted a patch [1] to fix the sparse warnings. Do I need to wait until
> > > Simon's patch is applied to the net-next tree and then resend this patch set?
> > > 
> > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/imx/20250624-etnetc-le-v1-1-a73a95d96e4e@kernel.org/  
> > 
> > Yes, I have confirmed that with patch[1] applied this patch-set
> > does not introduce any Sparse warnings (in my environment).
> > 
> > I noticed the Sparse warnings that are otherwise introduced when reviewing
> > v1 of this patchset which is why I crated patch[1].
> > 
> > The issue is that there is are long standing Sparse warnings - which
> > highlight a driver bug, albeit one that doesn't manifest with in tree
> > users. They is due to an unnecessary call to le64_to_cpu(). The warnings
> > are:
> > 
> >   .../enetc_hw.h:513:16: warning: cast to restricted __le64
> >   .../enetc_hw.h:513:16: warning: restricted __le64 degrades to integer
> >   .../enetc_hw.h:513:16: warning: cast to restricted __le64
> > 
> > Patches 2/3 and 3/3 multiply the incidence of the above 3 warnings because
> > they increase the callers of the inline function where the problem lies.
> > 
> > But I'd argue that, other than noise, they don't make things worse.
> > The bug doesn't manifest for in-tree users (and if it did, it would
> > have been manifesting anyway).
> > 
> > So I'd advocate accepting this series (or not) independent of resolving
> > the Sparse warnings. Which should disappear when patch[1], or some variant
> > thereof, is accepted (via net or directly into net-next).
> 
> All fair points, but unfortunately if there is a build issue 
> the patches are not fed into the full CI cycle.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that.

> Simon's fix
> will hit net-next tomorrow, let's get these reposted tomorrow
> so we can avoid any (unlikely) surprises?

Yes, agreed. Let's avoid surprises.