[PATCH] x86_64: Eliminate atleast 10684 sparse warnings

[PATCH] x86_64: Eliminate atleast 10684 sparse warnings

[Jaswinder Singh Rajput]

Impact: cleanup, avoid 10000+ sparse warnings

Eliminate 1434 sparse warnings like:
include/linux/list.h:106:16: warning: constant 0xdead000000000000 is so big it is unsigned long

Eliminate 1434 sparse warnings like:
include/linux/list.h:107:16: warning: constant 0xdead000000000000 is so big it is unsigned long

Eliminate 1434 sparse warnings like:
include/linux/list.h:579:12: warning: constant 0xdead000000000000 is so big it is unsigned long

Eliminate 1434 sparse warnings like:
include/linux/list.h:580:13: warning: constant 0xdead000000000000 is so big it is unsigned long

Eliminate 1237 sparse warnings like:
include/linux/rculist.h:97:16: warning: constant 0xdead000000000000 is so big it is unsigned long

Eliminate 1237 sparse warnings like:
include/linux/rculist.h:143:14: warning: constant 0xdead000000000000 is so big it is unsigned long

Eliminate 1237 sparse warnings like:
include/linux/rculist.h:260:13: warning: constant 0xdead000000000000 is so big it is unsigned long

Eliminate 1237 sparse warnings like:
include/linux/rculist.h:280:15: warning: constant 0xdead000000000000 is so big it is unsigned long

Signed-off-by: Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinderrajput@gmail.com>
---
 include/linux/poison.h |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/poison.h b/include/linux/poison.h
index 603d3bd..f2de9a9 100644
--- a/include/linux/poison.h
+++ b/include/linux/poison.h
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
  * that is also not mappable by user-space exploits:
  */
 #ifdef CONFIG_ILLEGAL_POINTER_VALUE
-# define POISON_POINTER_DELTA CONFIG_ILLEGAL_POINTER_VALUE
+# define POISON_POINTER_DELTA _AC(CONFIG_ILLEGAL_POINTER_VALUE, UL)
 #else
 # define POISON_POINTER_DELTA 0
 #endif
-- 
1.5.5.1

Re: [PATCH] x86_64: Eliminate atleast 10684 sparse warnings

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@infradead.org> wrote:

> Impact: cleanup, avoid 10000+ sparse warnings

:-)

>  include/linux/poison.h |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

applied to tip/safe-poison-pointers, thanks Jaswinder!

	Ingo

Re: [PATCH] x86_64: Eliminate atleast 10684 sparse warnings

[Andrew Morton]

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:21:36 +0530 Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@infradead.org> wrote:

>  #ifdef CONFIG_ILLEGAL_POINTER_VALUE
> -# define POISON_POINTER_DELTA CONFIG_ILLEGAL_POINTER_VALUE
> +# define POISON_POINTER_DELTA _AC(CONFIG_ILLEGAL_POINTER_VALUE, UL)
>  #else
>  # define POISON_POINTER_DELTA 0
>  #endif

So now

commit 948f984df52511bb0efa5c026813b0c34de43aa0
Author:     Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com>
AuthorDate: Tue May 20 14:39:25 2008 +0300
Commit:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
CommitDate: Tue May 20 13:42:31 2008 +0200

    core, x86: make LIST_POISON less deadly

gets splattered across three commits (at least).  Sigh.

(how come that patch is 7 moonths old and still unmerged, btw?)

Re: [PATCH] x86_64: Eliminate atleast 10684 sparse warnings

[Ingo Molnar]

* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:21:36 +0530 Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_ILLEGAL_POINTER_VALUE
> > -# define POISON_POINTER_DELTA CONFIG_ILLEGAL_POINTER_VALUE
> > +# define POISON_POINTER_DELTA _AC(CONFIG_ILLEGAL_POINTER_VALUE, UL)
> >  #else
> >  # define POISON_POINTER_DELTA 0
> >  #endif
> 
> So now
> 
> commit 948f984df52511bb0efa5c026813b0c34de43aa0
> Author:     Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com>
> AuthorDate: Tue May 20 14:39:25 2008 +0300
> Commit:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> CommitDate: Tue May 20 13:42:31 2008 +0200
> 
>     core, x86: make LIST_POISON less deadly
> 
> gets splattered across three commits (at least).  Sigh.

Can rebase, although that would hide the (deserved) credit that 
Jaswinder's patch deserves. And it does not appear to be a must-rebase 
example to me - it's not like one does sparse builds during bisection.

> (how come that patch is 7 moonths old and still unmerged, btw?)

Linus had reservations about the first version (which got fixed but which 
prevented it from going upstream in the first cycle) - and it's not an 
exactly critical change and other stuff interfered. All our previous merge 
windows were fully filled ;)

	Ingo