Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:32:32 -0400 | From | Kent Overstreet <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] bcachefs: Fix format specifier in validate_bset_keys() |
| |
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 02:47:32PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Kent, > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 12:09 AM Kent Overstreet > <kent.overstreet@linux.dev> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 08:16:02AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > > When building for 32-bit platforms, for which size_t is 'unsigned int', > > > there is a warning from a format string in validate_bset_keys(): > > > > > > fs/bcachefs/btree_io.c: In function 'validate_bset_keys': > > > fs/bcachefs/btree_io.c:891:34: error: format '%lu' expects argument of type 'long unsigned int', but argument 12 has type 'unsigned int' [-Werror=format=] > > > 891 | "bad k->u64s %u (min %u max %lu)", k->u64s, > > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > fs/bcachefs/btree_io.c:603:32: note: in definition of macro 'btree_err' > > > 603 | msg, ##__VA_ARGS__); \ > > > | ^~~ > > > fs/bcachefs/btree_io.c:887:21: note: in expansion of macro 'btree_err_on' > > > 887 | if (btree_err_on(!bkeyp_u64s_valid(&b->format, k), > > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > fs/bcachefs/btree_io.c:891:64: note: format string is defined here > > > 891 | "bad k->u64s %u (min %u max %lu)", k->u64s, > > > | ~~^ > > > | | > > > | long unsigned int > > > | %u > > > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors > > > > > > BKEY_U64s is size_t so the entire expression is promoted to size_t. Use > > > the '%zu' specifier so that there is no warning regardless of the width > > > of size_t. > > > > > > Fixes: 031ad9e7dbd1 ("bcachefs: Check for packed bkeys that are too big") > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> > > > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202404130747.wH6Dd23p-lkp@intel.com/ > > > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202404131536.HdAMBOVc-lkp@intel.com/ > > > Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> > > > > Thanks, applied > > This is still not fixed in today's linux-next, while the issue is now > causing breakage on several 32-bit defconfs in v6.9-rc5.
Apologies, I just neglected to update my for-next branch, it's in now.
| |