* [PATCH 1/1] drivers/staging: Fixed sparse error "directive in argument list" @ 2014-10-11 19:13 Filipe Gonçalves 2014-10-11 20:15 ` Greg KH 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Filipe Gonçalves @ 2014-10-11 19:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: oleg.drokin, andreas.dilger, gregkh, devel, linux-kernel Cc: Filipe Gonçalves This patch fixes a sparse warning on layout.c (ptlrpc) that was caused by having preprocessor directives in the arguments to a macro. Signed-off-by: Filipe Gonçalves <filipe@codinghighway.com> --- drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c | 7 +++++-- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c index 5b83371..211df78 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c @@ -978,10 +978,11 @@ struct req_msg_field RMF_CONN = EXPORT_SYMBOL(RMF_CONN); struct req_msg_field RMF_CONNECT_DATA = +#if LUSTRE_VERSION_CODE > OBD_OCD_VERSION(2, 7, 50, 0) DEFINE_MSGF("cdata", RMF_F_NO_SIZE_CHECK /* we allow extra space for interop */, -#if LUSTRE_VERSION_CODE > OBD_OCD_VERSION(2, 7, 50, 0) sizeof(struct obd_connect_data), + lustre_swab_connect, NULL); #else /* For interoperability with 1.8 and 2.0 clients/servers. * The RPC verification code allows larger RPC buffers, but not @@ -990,9 +991,11 @@ struct req_msg_field RMF_CONNECT_DATA = * size is at least as large as obd_connect_data_v1. That is not * not in itself harmful, since the chance of just corrupting this * field is low. See JIRA LU-16 for details. */ + DEFINE_MSGF("cdata", + RMF_F_NO_SIZE_CHECK /* we allow extra space for interop */, sizeof(struct obd_connect_data_v1), -#endif lustre_swab_connect, NULL); +#endif EXPORT_SYMBOL(RMF_CONNECT_DATA); struct req_msg_field RMF_DLM_REQ = -- 1.9.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/1] drivers/staging: Fixed sparse error "directive in argument list" 2014-10-11 19:13 [PATCH 1/1] drivers/staging: Fixed sparse error "directive in argument list" Filipe Gonçalves @ 2014-10-11 20:15 ` Greg KH 2014-10-11 21:06 ` Filipe Gonçalves 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Greg KH @ 2014-10-11 20:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Filipe Gonçalves; +Cc: oleg.drokin, andreas.dilger, devel, linux-kernel On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 08:13:42PM +0100, Filipe Gonçalves wrote: > This patch fixes a sparse warning on layout.c (ptlrpc) that was caused by having preprocessor directives in the arguments to a macro. > > Signed-off-by: Filipe Gonçalves <filipe@codinghighway.com> > --- > drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c | 7 +++++-- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c > index 5b83371..211df78 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c > @@ -978,10 +978,11 @@ struct req_msg_field RMF_CONN = > EXPORT_SYMBOL(RMF_CONN); > > struct req_msg_field RMF_CONNECT_DATA = > +#if LUSTRE_VERSION_CODE > OBD_OCD_VERSION(2, 7, 50, 0) > DEFINE_MSGF("cdata", > RMF_F_NO_SIZE_CHECK /* we allow extra space for interop */, > -#if LUSTRE_VERSION_CODE > OBD_OCD_VERSION(2, 7, 50, 0) > sizeof(struct obd_connect_data), > + lustre_swab_connect, NULL); Ick ick ick. Yeah, sparse might complain about this, but how about just properly deleting the #ifdef entirely, and not perpetuate it even more? It shouldn't be needed anymore now that the code is in the kernel tree. greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/1] drivers/staging: Fixed sparse error "directive in argument list" 2014-10-11 20:15 ` Greg KH @ 2014-10-11 21:06 ` Filipe Gonçalves 2014-10-11 21:49 ` Drokin, Oleg 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Filipe Gonçalves @ 2014-10-11 21:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg KH; +Cc: oleg.drokin, andreas.dilger, devel, linux-kernel Ah .. right! I didn't know what OBD_OCD_VERSION() was. Now I see it's a way to test kernel version. I am going to submit a new patch shortly. Thanks, Filipe On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 08:13:42PM +0100, Filipe Gonçalves wrote: >> This patch fixes a sparse warning on layout.c (ptlrpc) that was caused by having preprocessor directives in the arguments to a macro. >> >> Signed-off-by: Filipe Gonçalves <filipe@codinghighway.com> >> --- >> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c | 7 +++++-- >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c >> index 5b83371..211df78 100644 >> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c >> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c >> @@ -978,10 +978,11 @@ struct req_msg_field RMF_CONN = >> EXPORT_SYMBOL(RMF_CONN); >> >> struct req_msg_field RMF_CONNECT_DATA = >> +#if LUSTRE_VERSION_CODE > OBD_OCD_VERSION(2, 7, 50, 0) >> DEFINE_MSGF("cdata", >> RMF_F_NO_SIZE_CHECK /* we allow extra space for interop */, >> -#if LUSTRE_VERSION_CODE > OBD_OCD_VERSION(2, 7, 50, 0) >> sizeof(struct obd_connect_data), >> + lustre_swab_connect, NULL); > > Ick ick ick. > > Yeah, sparse might complain about this, but how about just properly > deleting the #ifdef entirely, and not perpetuate it even more? > > It shouldn't be needed anymore now that the code is in the kernel tree. > > greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/1] drivers/staging: Fixed sparse error "directive in argument list" 2014-10-11 21:06 ` Filipe Gonçalves @ 2014-10-11 21:49 ` Drokin, Oleg 2014-10-11 22:02 ` Filipe Gonçalves 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Drokin, Oleg @ 2014-10-11 21:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Filipe Gonçalves Cc: Greg KH, Dilger, Andreas, devel, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Hello! No, it's not the way to test the kernel version, it's the way to test internal lustre version. Either way maintaining compatibility with Lustre 1.8 and 2.0 servers should not be important anymore, so it's fine to drop this check indeed. Bye, Oleg On Oct 11, 2014, at 5:06 PM, Filipe Gonçalves wrote: > Ah .. right! I didn't know what OBD_OCD_VERSION() was. Now I see it's > a way to test kernel version. I am going to submit a new patch > shortly. > > Thanks, > Filipe > > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 08:13:42PM +0100, Filipe Gonçalves wrote: >>> This patch fixes a sparse warning on layout.c (ptlrpc) that was caused by having preprocessor directives in the arguments to a macro. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Filipe Gonçalves <filipe@codinghighway.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c | 7 +++++-- >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c >>> index 5b83371..211df78 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c >>> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c >>> @@ -978,10 +978,11 @@ struct req_msg_field RMF_CONN = >>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(RMF_CONN); >>> >>> struct req_msg_field RMF_CONNECT_DATA = >>> +#if LUSTRE_VERSION_CODE > OBD_OCD_VERSION(2, 7, 50, 0) >>> DEFINE_MSGF("cdata", >>> RMF_F_NO_SIZE_CHECK /* we allow extra space for interop */, >>> -#if LUSTRE_VERSION_CODE > OBD_OCD_VERSION(2, 7, 50, 0) >>> sizeof(struct obd_connect_data), >>> + lustre_swab_connect, NULL); >> >> Ick ick ick. >> >> Yeah, sparse might complain about this, but how about just properly >> deleting the #ifdef entirely, and not perpetuate it even more? >> >> It shouldn't be needed anymore now that the code is in the kernel tree. >> >> greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/1] drivers/staging: Fixed sparse error "directive in argument list" 2014-10-11 21:49 ` Drokin, Oleg @ 2014-10-11 22:02 ` Filipe Gonçalves 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Filipe Gonçalves @ 2014-10-11 22:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Drokin, Oleg Cc: Greg KH, Dilger, Andreas, devel, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Hi, Oops.. sorry for the mess then. I am still trying to get to know the codebase. I submitted a new patch where I removed the check. Thanks for your patience :) Best, Filipe On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Drokin, Oleg <oleg.drokin@intel.com> wrote: > > Hello! > > No, it's not the way to test the kernel version, it's the way to test internal > lustre version. > Either way maintaining compatibility with Lustre 1.8 and 2.0 servers should not > be important anymore, so it's fine to drop this check indeed. > > Bye, > Oleg > On Oct 11, 2014, at 5:06 PM, Filipe Gonçalves wrote: > >> Ah .. right! I didn't know what OBD_OCD_VERSION() was. Now I see it's >> a way to test kernel version. I am going to submit a new patch >> shortly. >> >> Thanks, >> Filipe >> >> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 08:13:42PM +0100, Filipe Gonçalves wrote: >>>> This patch fixes a sparse warning on layout.c (ptlrpc) that was caused by having preprocessor directives in the arguments to a macro. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Filipe Gonçalves <filipe@codinghighway.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c | 7 +++++-- >>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c >>>> index 5b83371..211df78 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c >>>> @@ -978,10 +978,11 @@ struct req_msg_field RMF_CONN = >>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(RMF_CONN); >>>> >>>> struct req_msg_field RMF_CONNECT_DATA = >>>> +#if LUSTRE_VERSION_CODE > OBD_OCD_VERSION(2, 7, 50, 0) >>>> DEFINE_MSGF("cdata", >>>> RMF_F_NO_SIZE_CHECK /* we allow extra space for interop */, >>>> -#if LUSTRE_VERSION_CODE > OBD_OCD_VERSION(2, 7, 50, 0) >>>> sizeof(struct obd_connect_data), >>>> + lustre_swab_connect, NULL); >>> >>> Ick ick ick. >>> >>> Yeah, sparse might complain about this, but how about just properly >>> deleting the #ifdef entirely, and not perpetuate it even more? >>> >>> It shouldn't be needed anymore now that the code is in the kernel tree. >>> >>> greg k-h > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-10-11 23:34 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2014-10-11 19:13 [PATCH 1/1] drivers/staging: Fixed sparse error "directive in argument list" Filipe Gonçalves 2014-10-11 20:15 ` Greg KH 2014-10-11 21:06 ` Filipe Gonçalves 2014-10-11 21:49 ` Drokin, Oleg 2014-10-11 22:02 ` Filipe Gonçalves
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox