Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/3] change some statistics to 64-bit

[Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>]

On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 17:34:59 +0100 Simon Horman wrote:
> > Simon has posted a patch [1] to fix the sparse warnings. Do I need to wait until
> > Simon's patch is applied to the net-next tree and then resend this patch set?
> > 
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/imx/20250624-etnetc-le-v1-1-a73a95d96e4e@kernel.org/  
> 
> Yes, I have confirmed that with patch[1] applied this patch-set
> does not introduce any Sparse warnings (in my environment).
> 
> I noticed the Sparse warnings that are otherwise introduced when reviewing
> v1 of this patchset which is why I crated patch[1].
> 
> The issue is that there is are long standing Sparse warnings - which
> highlight a driver bug, albeit one that doesn't manifest with in tree
> users. They is due to an unnecessary call to le64_to_cpu(). The warnings
> are:
> 
>   .../enetc_hw.h:513:16: warning: cast to restricted __le64
>   .../enetc_hw.h:513:16: warning: restricted __le64 degrades to integer
>   .../enetc_hw.h:513:16: warning: cast to restricted __le64
> 
> Patches 2/3 and 3/3 multiply the incidence of the above 3 warnings because
> they increase the callers of the inline function where the problem lies.
> 
> But I'd argue that, other than noise, they don't make things worse.
> The bug doesn't manifest for in-tree users (and if it did, it would
> have been manifesting anyway).
> 
> So I'd advocate accepting this series (or not) independent of resolving
> the Sparse warnings. Which should disappear when patch[1], or some variant
> thereof, is accepted (via net or directly into net-next).

All fair points, but unfortunately if there is a build issue 
the patches are not fed into the full CI cycle. Simon's fix
will hit net-next tomorrow, let's get these reposted tomorrow
so we can avoid any (unlikely) surprises?