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: 19+ 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
2014-02-19 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
2014-02-21 16:37 ` Keith Busch [this message]
2014-03-04 9:36 ` [PATCH v2] " Paul Bolle
2014-03-05 15:09 ` Keith Busch
2014-03-06 9:56 ` Paul Bolle
2014-03-24 13:11 ` Matthew Wilcox
2014-03-24 13:31 ` Matthew Wilcox
2014-03-24 15:36 ` Paul Bolle
2014-03-24 15:49 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2014-03-24 15:57 ` 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 \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=pebolle@tiscali.nl \
--cc=willy@linux.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox