From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52D8D257845 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2026 15:55:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.20 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1792166125; cv=none; b=dMCpmdMtt4dloEIuXChKQmHoJ1j9XF4Na/sUyotVdq1WxzptqL+7S4lUQIkEEP4PjGvLxMIYaKVBHaMdJhtXFw8+j3bJ0sCcw9v6gg2A3/0IUjOBfuYDXRF58G2E3xHfzGB9/onV7hlLLwZ5bNygNPBx+8yivC8kp1YYnXZ1MUc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1792166125; c=relaxed/simple; bh=+92RW9LzfUXie/qB6p4Wi4tA131SJdL8RGLnb+hxCcY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID; b=eqCFUe6nSXwElKlsl/WR+hBNDD7jypfheGecsUMyR5b0dbK5T1ng8UblLwB7PR0uC9DnUmHrDuZ4+rW5QeItOlJCEQYk/27gmXq9wiqoaik78FJzcEXaPHimtV4J94M4A3GIGJXarKDYM2OiCt+4/QO269JEYtUa8L4yE3/eFVc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=jaGVyRJ4; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.20 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="jaGVyRJ4" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1792166123; x=1823702123; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id; bh=+92RW9LzfUXie/qB6p4Wi4tA131SJdL8RGLnb+hxCcY=; b=jaGVyRJ4mnkvwdh0vrjzp3n9riSjTRX4pR2RUbmgbNBYTkw909sxan/P oPBpobL3h5BF2QZ+4OLjSV/mIsbYoWZFACIBHBwtlyK35mjDiep6Er7bQ bKoi985yeHKDiowWzVJb5eUSjVi1pGGHj1NPV/jYbbwVWiReAuO5KShrS jwJdt9+p1zQVEtOOymT2buolJ3Lr1GGPPfcURk+fAIdnkv3EgxItZBOcT dr+m6Qt8TPvE2Mv3uOwlMrM5+OGNuGDcEMxjzvfj98pSEZiBtMbsyFui9 SfAfe2yg4E/iBa/tq/QusG743Z4nEwRaHJoECCz4tWm9OSDMiyiSXaPX8 g==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: RDHCtz1HRninxgGyK1SKLQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: k1qYm/esQXeodgOwpf5Dhw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11937"; a="955597" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.27,162,1787036400"; d="scan'208";a="955597" Received: from fmviesa007.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.147]) by orvoesa112.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Oct 2026 08:55:23 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: rEwtPQVESHO3QWBpyKQbVA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: YHMsfD8mTL21iW0hdUCcSw== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.27,162,1787036400"; d="scan'208";a="2341932" Received: from igk-lkp-server01.igk.intel.com (HELO d0de6c2a75a7) ([10.211.93.152]) by fmviesa007.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Oct 2026 08:55:22 -0700 Received: from kbuild by d0de6c2a75a7 with local (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1xHkH9-00000000CI3-1pho; Fri, 16 Oct 2026 15:55:19 +0000 Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 17:54:54 +0200 From: kernel test robot To: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi Cc: oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev Subject: [kkdwivedi:rqspinlock-owner 25/25] kernel/bpf/rqspinlock.c:98:17: sparse: sparse: incorrect type in initializer (different address spaces) Message-ID: <202610161715.UkQUIkfo-lkp@intel.com> User-Agent: s-nail v14.9.25 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: tree: https://github.com/kkdwivedi/linux rqspinlock-owner head: b7b5b7c8a79dfa5564b7f98ad4691e53e1de0123 commit: ae7807cc237a7422d939f3692b9a3095a10ef881 [25/25] rqspinlock: Cache the owner value in the held-locks table config: i386-randconfig-2300-20261016 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20261016/202610161715.UkQUIkfo-lkp@intel.com/config) compiler: gcc-14 (Debian 14.2.0-19) 14.2.0 sparse: v0.6.5-rc1 reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20261016/202610161715.UkQUIkfo-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 | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202610161715.UkQUIkfo-lkp@intel.com/ sparse warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>) >> kernel/bpf/rqspinlock.c:98:17: sparse: sparse: incorrect type in initializer (different address spaces) @@ expected void const [noderef] __percpu *__vpp_verify @@ got unsigned int * @@ kernel/bpf/rqspinlock.c:98:17: sparse: expected void const [noderef] __percpu *__vpp_verify kernel/bpf/rqspinlock.c:98:17: sparse: got unsigned int * kernel/bpf/rqspinlock.c:112:39: sparse: sparse: incorrect type in initializer (different address spaces) @@ expected void const [noderef] __percpu *__vpp_verify @@ got struct rqspinlock_held * @@ kernel/bpf/rqspinlock.c:112:39: sparse: expected void const [noderef] __percpu *__vpp_verify kernel/bpf/rqspinlock.c:112:39: sparse: got struct rqspinlock_held * kernel/bpf/rqspinlock.c:133:39: sparse: sparse: incorrect type in initializer (different address spaces) @@ expected void const [noderef] __percpu *__vpp_verify @@ got struct rqspinlock_held * @@ kernel/bpf/rqspinlock.c:133:39: sparse: expected void const [noderef] __percpu *__vpp_verify kernel/bpf/rqspinlock.c:133:39: sparse: got struct rqspinlock_held * kernel/bpf/rqspinlock.c:146:51: sparse: sparse: incorrect type in initializer (different address spaces) @@ expected void const [noderef] __percpu *__vpp_verify @@ got struct rqspinlock_held * @@ kernel/bpf/rqspinlock.c:146:51: sparse: expected void const [noderef] __percpu *__vpp_verify kernel/bpf/rqspinlock.c:146:51: sparse: got struct rqspinlock_held * kernel/bpf/rqspinlock.c:681:39: sparse: sparse: incorrect type in initializer (different address spaces) @@ expected void const [noderef] __percpu *__vpp_verify @@ got struct rqspinlock_held * @@ kernel/bpf/rqspinlock.c:681:39: sparse: expected void const [noderef] __percpu *__vpp_verify kernel/bpf/rqspinlock.c:681:39: sparse: got struct rqspinlock_held * kernel/bpf/rqspinlock.c:705:17: sparse: sparse: symbol 'bpf_res_spin_lock' was not declared. Should it be static? kernel/bpf/rqspinlock.c:721:18: sparse: sparse: symbol 'bpf_res_spin_unlock' was not declared. Should it be static? kernel/bpf/rqspinlock.c:727:17: sparse: sparse: symbol 'bpf_res_spin_lock_irqsave' was not declared. Should it be static? kernel/bpf/rqspinlock.c:746:18: sparse: sparse: symbol 'bpf_res_spin_unlock_irqrestore' was not declared. Should it be static? vim +98 kernel/bpf/rqspinlock.c 85 86 /* 87 * Fill in each CPU's owner value for the lock word. Per-CPU memory for every 88 * possible CPU exists from setup_per_cpu_areas() on, and an early initcall 89 * runs before secondary CPUs are brought up and long before user space, which 90 * is what every rqspinlock user needs to issue an acquisition. A copy left at 91 * zero would still form a valid lock word (see struct rqspinlock_held). 92 */ 93 static int __init rqspinlock_init_owner(void) 94 { 95 int cpu; 96 97 for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) > 98 per_cpu(rqspinlock_held_locks.owner, cpu) = cpu << RQ_OWNER_OFFSET; 99 return 0; 100 } 101 early_initcall(rqspinlock_init_owner); 102 -- 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki