Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:26:45 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2.6.31.1] include/linux/kmemcheck.h: fix a sparse warning | From | Vegard Nossum <> |
| |
2009/10/14 Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@gmail.com>: > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 2009/10/2 Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@gmail.com>: >> > On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Bart Van Assche >> > <bart.vanassche@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Checking a 2.6.31.1 kernel configured with allyesconfig/allmodconfig >> >> with sparse (make C=2) triggers a sparse warning on code that uses the >> >> kmemcheck_annotate_bitfield() macro. An example of such a warning: >> >> >> >> include/net/inet_sock.h:208:17: warning: do-while statement is not a compound statement >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@gmail.com> >> >> Cc: Vegard Nossum <vegardno@ifi.uio.no> >> >> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> >> >> >> >> --- linux-2.6.31.1/include/linux/kmemcheck-orig.h 2009-09-26 13:53:44.000000000 +0200 >> >> +++ linux-2.6.31.1/include/linux/kmemcheck.h 2009-09-26 13:53:56.000000000 +0200 >> >> @@ -137,13 +137,13 @@ static inline void kmemcheck_mark_initia >> >> int name##_end[0]; >> >> >> >> #define kmemcheck_annotate_bitfield(ptr, name) \ >> >> - do if (ptr) { \ >> >> + do { if (ptr) { \ >> >> int _n = (long) &((ptr)->name##_end) \ >> >> - (long) &((ptr)->name##_begin); \ >> >> BUILD_BUG_ON(_n < 0); \ >> >> \ >> >> kmemcheck_mark_initialized(&((ptr)->name##_begin), _n); \ >> >> - } while (0) >> >> + } } while (0) >> >> >> >> #define kmemcheck_annotate_variable(var) \ >> >> do { \ >> > >> > (ping) >> > >> > Did anyone already have the time to review the patch above ? >> >> A patch for this problem has already been applied in latest mainline. > > Unfortunately this issue is still present in 2.6.31.4, which has been > released on October 12 (yesterday). Is the patch that has been applied > in the mainline kernel suitable for backporting ?
I assumed that this wouldn't be suitable for stable kernels, as the change is purely syntactic. Is there a good reason for applying this patch to the stable series? Perhaps Greg can answer this (Cced)?
Vegard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |