From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 11:31:47 -0500 From: Mike Snitzer Subject: Re: md: dm-writeback: add __noreturn to BUG-ging function Message-ID: <20201117163147.GA27243@redhat.com> References: <20201113225228.20563-1-rdunlap@infradead.org> <344abf76-9405-58ba-2dc4-27cab88c974d@de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-ID: To: Randy Dunlap Cc: Christian Borntraeger , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mikulas Patocka , Alasdair Kergon , dm-devel@redhat.com, Heiko Carstens , Vasily Gorbik , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 16 2020 at 6:00pm -0500, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 11/15/20 11:30 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > > > > On 13.11.20 23:52, Randy Dunlap wrote: > >> Building on arch/s390/ flags this as an error, so add the > >> __noreturn attribute modifier to prevent the build error. > >> > >> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors > >> ../drivers/md/dm-writecache.c: In function 'persistent_memory_claim': > >> ../drivers/md/dm-writecache.c:323:1: error: no return statement in function returning non-void [-Werror=return-type] > > > > ok with me, but I am asking why > > > > the unreachable macro is not good enough. For x86 it obviously is. > > > > form arch/s390/include/asm/bug.h > > #define BUG() do { \ > > __EMIT_BUG(0); \ > > unreachable(); \ > > } while (0) > > > > Hi Christian, > > Good question. > I don't see any guidance about when to use one or the other etc. > > I see __noreturn being used 109 times and unreachable(); > being used 33 times, but only now that I look at them. > That had nothing to do with why I used __noreturn in the patch. But doesn't that speak to the proper fix being needed in unreachable()? Or at a minimum the fix is needed to arch/s390/include/asm/bug.h's BUG. I really don't think we should be papering over that by sprinkling __noreturn around the kernel's BUG() callers. Maybe switch arch/s390/include/asm/bug.h's BUG to be like arch/mips/include/asm/bug.h? It itself uses __noreturn with a 'static inline' function definition rather than #define. Does that fix the issue? Thanks, Mike p.s. you modified dm-writecache.c (not dm-writeback, wich doesn't exist).