From: keith.busch@intel.com (Keith Busch)
Subject: [PATCH] NVMe: silence GCC warning on 32 bit
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:37:30 -0700 (MST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.03.1402210921010.4656@AMR> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1392934261.15264.22.camel@x220>
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-18@10:02 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> And these popped up in v3.14-rc1 on 32 bit x86. This patch makes these
> warnings go away. Compile tested only (on 32 and 64 bit x86).
>
> Review is appreciated, because the code I'm touching here is far from
> obvious to me.
> -------->8--------
> From: Paul Bolle <pebolle at tiscali.nl>
> These are false positives. A bit of staring at the code reveals that
> "struct bio_vec bvprv" and "int first" operate in lockstep: if first is
> 1 bvprv isn't yet initialized and if first is 0 bvprv will be
> initialized. But if we convert bvprv to a pointer and initialize it to
> NULL we can do away with first. And it turns out the warning is gone if
> we do that. So that appears to be enough to help GCC understand the
> flow of this code.
That's pretty much how it was done before the bio_vec iterators were
merged, but I think there's a problem with this approach for this patch
(see below).
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle at tiscali.nl>
> ---
> drivers/block/nvme-core.c | 10 ++++------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/block/nvme-core.c b/drivers/block/nvme-core.c
> index 51824d1..f9fb28b 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/nvme-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/nvme-core.c
> @@ -495,11 +495,10 @@ static int nvme_split_and_submit(struct bio *bio, struct nvme_queue *nvmeq,
> static int nvme_map_bio(struct nvme_queue *nvmeq, struct nvme_iod *iod,
> struct bio *bio, enum dma_data_direction dma_dir, int psegs)
> {
> - struct bio_vec bvec, bvprv;
> + struct bio_vec bvec, *bvprv = NULL;
> struct bvec_iter iter;
> struct scatterlist *sg = NULL;
> int length = 0, nsegs = 0, split_len = bio->bi_iter.bi_size;
> - int first = 1;
>
> if (nvmeq->dev->stripe_size)
> split_len = nvmeq->dev->stripe_size -
> @@ -508,10 +507,10 @@ static int nvme_map_bio(struct nvme_queue *nvmeq, struct nvme_iod *iod,
>
> sg_init_table(iod->sg, psegs);
> bio_for_each_segment(bvec, bio, iter) {
> - if (!first && BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE(&bvprv, &bvec)) {
> + if (bvprv && BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE(bvprv, &bvec)) {
> sg->length += bvec.bv_len;
> } else {
> - if (!first && BIOVEC_NOT_VIRT_MERGEABLE(&bvprv, &bvec))
> + if (bvprv && BIOVEC_NOT_VIRT_MERGEABLE(bvprv, &bvec))
> return nvme_split_and_submit(bio, nvmeq,
> length);
>
> @@ -524,8 +523,7 @@ static int nvme_map_bio(struct nvme_queue *nvmeq, struct nvme_iod *iod,
> if (split_len - length < bvec.bv_len)
> return nvme_split_and_submit(bio, nvmeq, split_len);
> length += bvec.bv_len;
> - bvprv = bvec;
> - first = 0;
> + bvprv = &bvec;
The address of bvec doesn't change, so bvprv is still going to point
to bvec on the next iteration instead of the previous bio_vec like we
want. When the next iteration gets to this comparison:
> + if (bvprv && BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE(bvprv, &bvec)) {
both bio_vec's have the same address.
> }
> iod->nents = nsegs;
> sg_mark_end(sg);
> --
> 1.8.5.3
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>
To: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NVMe: silence GCC warning on 32 bit
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:37:30 -0700 (MST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.03.1402210921010.4656@AMR> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1392934261.15264.22.camel@x220>
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-18 at 10:02 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> And these popped up in v3.14-rc1 on 32 bit x86. This patch makes these
> warnings go away. Compile tested only (on 32 and 64 bit x86).
>
> Review is appreciated, because the code I'm touching here is far from
> obvious to me.
> -------->8--------
> From: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
> These are false positives. A bit of staring at the code reveals that
> "struct bio_vec bvprv" and "int first" operate in lockstep: if first is
> 1 bvprv isn't yet initialized and if first is 0 bvprv will be
> initialized. But if we convert bvprv to a pointer and initialize it to
> NULL we can do away with first. And it turns out the warning is gone if
> we do that. So that appears to be enough to help GCC understand the
> flow of this code.
That's pretty much how it was done before the bio_vec iterators were
merged, but I think there's a problem with this approach for this patch
(see below).
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
> ---
> drivers/block/nvme-core.c | 10 ++++------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/block/nvme-core.c b/drivers/block/nvme-core.c
> index 51824d1..f9fb28b 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/nvme-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/nvme-core.c
> @@ -495,11 +495,10 @@ static int nvme_split_and_submit(struct bio *bio, struct nvme_queue *nvmeq,
> static int nvme_map_bio(struct nvme_queue *nvmeq, struct nvme_iod *iod,
> struct bio *bio, enum dma_data_direction dma_dir, int psegs)
> {
> - struct bio_vec bvec, bvprv;
> + struct bio_vec bvec, *bvprv = NULL;
> struct bvec_iter iter;
> struct scatterlist *sg = NULL;
> int length = 0, nsegs = 0, split_len = bio->bi_iter.bi_size;
> - int first = 1;
>
> if (nvmeq->dev->stripe_size)
> split_len = nvmeq->dev->stripe_size -
> @@ -508,10 +507,10 @@ static int nvme_map_bio(struct nvme_queue *nvmeq, struct nvme_iod *iod,
>
> sg_init_table(iod->sg, psegs);
> bio_for_each_segment(bvec, bio, iter) {
> - if (!first && BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE(&bvprv, &bvec)) {
> + if (bvprv && BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE(bvprv, &bvec)) {
> sg->length += bvec.bv_len;
> } else {
> - if (!first && BIOVEC_NOT_VIRT_MERGEABLE(&bvprv, &bvec))
> + if (bvprv && BIOVEC_NOT_VIRT_MERGEABLE(bvprv, &bvec))
> return nvme_split_and_submit(bio, nvmeq,
> length);
>
> @@ -524,8 +523,7 @@ static int nvme_map_bio(struct nvme_queue *nvmeq, struct nvme_iod *iod,
> if (split_len - length < bvec.bv_len)
> return nvme_split_and_submit(bio, nvmeq, split_len);
> length += bvec.bv_len;
> - bvprv = bvec;
> - first = 0;
> + bvprv = &bvec;
The address of bvec doesn't change, so bvprv is still going to point
to bvec on the next iteration instead of the previous bio_vec like we
want. When the next iteration gets to this comparison:
> + if (bvprv && BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE(bvprv, &bvec)) {
both bio_vec's have the same address.
> }
> iod->nents = nsegs;
> sg_mark_end(sg);
> --
> 1.8.5.3
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-21 16:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-18 9:02 Build regressions/improvements in v3.14-rc3 Geert Uytterhoeven
2014-02-18 9:06 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2014-02-18 9:06 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2014-02-19 9:52 ` [PATCH] target_core_alua: silence GCC warning Paul Bolle
2014-02-19 9:59 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2014-02-19 10:05 ` Paul Bolle
2014-02-19 22:59 ` Nicholas A. Bellinger
2014-02-20 8:07 ` [PATCH v2] " Paul Bolle
2014-02-20 18:33 ` Nicholas A. Bellinger
2014-02-20 22:11 ` [PATCH] NVMe: silence GCC warning on 32 bit Paul Bolle
2014-02-20 22:11 ` Paul Bolle
2014-02-21 16:37 ` Keith Busch [this message]
2014-02-21 16:37 ` Keith Busch
2014-03-04 9:36 ` [PATCH v2] " Paul Bolle
2014-03-04 9:36 ` Paul Bolle
2014-03-05 15:09 ` Keith Busch
2014-03-05 15:09 ` Keith Busch
2014-03-06 9:56 ` Paul Bolle
2014-03-06 9:56 ` Paul Bolle
2014-03-24 13:11 ` Matthew Wilcox
2014-03-24 13:11 ` Matthew Wilcox
2014-03-24 13:31 ` Matthew Wilcox
2014-03-24 13:31 ` Matthew Wilcox
2014-03-24 15:36 ` Paul Bolle
2014-03-24 15:36 ` Paul Bolle
2014-03-24 15:49 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2014-03-24 15:49 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2014-03-24 15:57 ` Paul Bolle
2014-03-24 15:57 ` Paul Bolle
2014-05-08 7:12 ` Paul Bolle
2014-05-08 7:12 ` Paul Bolle
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.LRH.2.03.1402210921010.4656@AMR \
--to=keith.busch@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.