From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: sparse vs. skbuff.h Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:51:59 +0100 Message-ID: <4B01AD5F.7020402@gmail.com> References: <1258399271.32159.39.camel@johannes.local> <1258399627.32159.41.camel@johannes.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: netdev , Vegard Nossum To: Johannes Berg Return-path: Received: from gw1.cosmosbay.com ([212.99.114.194]:52225 "EHLO gw1.cosmosbay.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752299AbZKPTv5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:51:57 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1258399627.32159.41.camel@johannes.local> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Johannes Berg a =C3=A9crit : > On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 20:21 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: >> commit 14d18a81b5171d4433e41129619c75748b4f4d26 >> Author: Eric Dumazet >> Date: Thu Oct 29 00:10:37 2009 +0000 >> >> net: fix kmemcheck annotations >> >> >> broke sparse endian checks on everything that includes skbuff.h beca= use >> the first and only (because it's an error) thing sparse now reports = is >> this: >> >> include/linux/skbuff.h:357:41: error: invalid bitfield specifier for= type restricted __be16. >=20 > Simply changing from > __be16 protocol:16; > to > __be16 protocol; >=20 > but leaving it inside the kmemcheck annotation seems to do the right > thing. Except of course that kmemcheck will not properly check it now= =2E > Maybe those annotations should simply be made to have no impact on > struct padding instead? >=20 Hmm, I have really no idea of what is the right way to fix this stuff. Last time I did adding a non bitfield element inside the begin/end anno= tations, I was flamed, because a bitfield is a bitfield, not a char/short http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg108803.html Now sparse is complaining... What will be the next story ?