Re: [PATCH 01/20] x86: move prepare_ftrace_return prototype to header

Re: [PATCH 01/20] x86: move prepare_ftrace_return prototype to header

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 16 May 2023 21:35:30 +0200
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> wrote:

> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> 
> On 32-bit builds, the prepare_ftrace_return() function only has a global
> definition, but no prototype before it, which causes a warning:
> 
> arch/x86/kernel/ftrace.c:625:6: warning: no previous prototype for ‘prepare_ftrace_return’ [-Wmissing-prototypes]
>   625 | void prepare_ftrace_return(unsigned long ip, unsigned long *parent,
> 
> Move the prototype that is already needed for some configurations into
> a header file where it can be seen unconditionally.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/ftrace.h | 3 +++
>  arch/x86/kernel/ftrace.c      | 3 ---
>  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/ftrace.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/ftrace.h
> index 5061ac98ffa1..b8d4a07f9595 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/ftrace.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/ftrace.h

Acked-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) <rostedt@goodmis.org>

-- Steve
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH 10/20] x86: xen: add missing prototypes

[Dave Hansen]

On 5/16/23 12:35, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> 
> arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c:1233:34: error: no previous prototype for 'xen_start_kernel' [-Werror=missing-prototypes]
> arch/x86/xen/irq.c:22:14: error: no previous prototype for 'xen_force_evtchn_callback' [-Werror=missing-prototypes]
> arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c:358:20: error: no previous prototype for 'xen_pte_val' [-Werror=missing-prototypes]
> arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c:366:20: error: no previous prototype for 'xen_pgd_val' [-Werror=missing-prototypes]

What's the deal with this one?

The patch is doing a bunch functions on top of the ones from the commit
message.  Were you just showing a snippet of what the actual set of
warnings is?

Also, fwiw, it would be nice to have actual words in the changelog, even
for these maddeningly repetitive series.  Even something like:

	Xen has a bunch of these because of how the paravirt code uses
	inline assembly.
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH 00/20] x86: address -Wmissing-prototype warnings

[Dave Hansen]

On 5/16/23 12:35, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> The ones that are a bit awkward are those that just add a prototype to
> shut up the warning, but the prototypes are never used for calling the
> function because the only caller is in assembler code. I tried to come up
> with other ways to shut up the compiler using the asmlinkage annotation,
> but with no success.

I went looking for the same thing.  It's too bad gcc doesn't have an
__attribute__ for it.
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH 00/20] x86: address -Wmissing-prototype warnings

[Dave Hansen]

On 5/16/23 12:35, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> 
> This addresses all x86 specific prototype warnings. The majority of the
> patches should be straightforward, either adding an #include statement
> to get the right header, or ensuring that an unused global function is
> left out of the build when the prototype is hidden.
> 
> The ones that are a bit awkward are those that just add a prototype to
> shut up the warning, but the prototypes are never used for calling the
> function because the only caller is in assembler code. I tried to come up
> with other ways to shut up the compiler using the asmlinkage annotation,
> but with no success.
> 
> All of the warnings have to be addressed in some form before the warning
> can be enabled by default.

I picked up the ones that were blatantly obvious, but left out 03, 04,
10, 12 and 19 for the moment.

BTW, I think the i386 allyesconfig is getting pretty lightly tested
these days.  I think you and I hit the same mlx4 __bad_copy_from()
compile issue.
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH 00/20] x86: address -Wmissing-prototype warnings

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 12:56 AM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:
> On 5/16/23 12:35, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> I picked up the ones that were blatantly obvious, but left out 03, 04,
> 10, 12 and 19 for the moment.

Btw, there is series that went unnoticed

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211119110017.48510-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com/

I dunno why.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH 10/20] x86: xen: add missing prototypes

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Thu, May 18, 2023, at 19:28, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 5/16/23 12:35, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> 
>> arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c:1233:34: error: no previous prototype for 'xen_start_kernel' [-Werror=missing-prototypes]
>> arch/x86/xen/irq.c:22:14: error: no previous prototype for 'xen_force_evtchn_callback' [-Werror=missing-prototypes]
>> arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c:358:20: error: no previous prototype for 'xen_pte_val' [-Werror=missing-prototypes]
>> arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c:366:20: error: no previous prototype for 'xen_pgd_val' [-Werror=missing-prototypes]
>
> What's the deal with this one?
>
> The patch is doing a bunch functions on top of the ones from the commit
> message.  Were you just showing a snippet of what the actual set of
> warnings is?

I missed this one going through the changelogs before sending them out,
I thought I had added a proper text to each one, but it fell through the
cracks. I've followed up with a v2 patch that has a proper changelog
now.

      Arnd
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH 00/20] x86: address -Wmissing-prototype warnings

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Thu, May 18, 2023, at 23:56, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 5/16/23 12:35, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> 
>> All of the warnings have to be addressed in some form before the warning
>> can be enabled by default.
>
> I picked up the ones that were blatantly obvious, but left out 03, 04,
> 10, 12 and 19 for the moment.

Ok, thanks!

I've already sent a fixed version of patch 10, let me know if you
need anything else for the other ones.

> BTW, I think the i386 allyesconfig is getting pretty lightly tested
> these days.  I think you and I hit the same mlx4 __bad_copy_from()
> compile issue.

I did all my testing on randconfig builds, so I probably caught a lot
of the more obscure corner cases, but it doesn't always hit everything
that is in allyesconfig/allmodconfig.

       Arnd
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization