Messages in this thread | | | From | Nadav Amit <> | Subject | Re: drivers/misc/vmw_balloon.c:200: warning: Function parameter or member '5' not described in 'vmballoon_batch_entry' | Date | Mon, 6 Nov 2023 11:10:03 +0000 |
| |
[ -Xavier ]
> On Nov 6, 2023, at 8:18 AM, kernel test robot <yujie.liu@intel.com> wrote: > > !! External Email > > tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master > head: 77fa2fbe87fc605c4bfa87dff87be9bfded0e9a3 > commit: 6c94875799eaf99bfdbb0efce21d75e1c56e96d5 vmw_balloon: simplifying batch access > date: 5 years ago
Isn’t is slightly strange for the bot to check 5 year old patches?
> All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>): > > In file included from drivers/misc/vmw_balloon.c:28: > include/linux/vmw_vmci_defs.h:159:33: warning: 'VMCI_ANON_SRC_HANDLE' defined but not used [-Wunused-const-variable=] > 159 | static const struct vmci_handle VMCI_ANON_SRC_HANDLE = { > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> drivers/misc/vmw_balloon.c:200: warning: Function parameter or member '5' not described in 'vmballoon_batch_entry' > drivers/misc/vmw_balloon.o: warning: objtool: vmballoon_deflate()+0x1ca: sibling call from callable instruction with modified stack frame > drivers/misc/vmw_balloon.o: warning: objtool: vmballoon_debug_show()+0x73: sibling call from callable instruction with modified stack frame > drivers/misc/vmw_balloon.o: warning: objtool: vmballoon_inflate()+0xa1: sibling call from callable instruction with modified stack frame > drivers/misc/vmw_balloon.o: warning: objtool: vmballoon_work()+0x84: sibling call from callable instruction with modified stack frame > > > vim +200 drivers/misc/vmw_balloon.c > > 365bd7ef7ec8eb Philip P. Moltmann 2015-08-06 188 > 6c94875799eaf9 Nadav Amit 2018-09-20 189 /** > 6c94875799eaf9 Nadav Amit 2018-09-20 190 * struct vmballoon_batch_entry - a batch entry for lock or unlock. > 6c94875799eaf9 Nadav Amit 2018-09-20 191 * > 6c94875799eaf9 Nadav Amit 2018-09-20 192 * @status: the status of the operation, which is written by the hypervisor. > 6c94875799eaf9 Nadav Amit 2018-09-20 193 * @reserved: reserved for future use. Must be set to zero. > 6c94875799eaf9 Nadav Amit 2018-09-20 194 * @pfn: the physical frame number of the page to be locked or unlocked. > 6c94875799eaf9 Nadav Amit 2018-09-20 195 */ > 6c94875799eaf9 Nadav Amit 2018-09-20 196 struct vmballoon_batch_entry { > 6c94875799eaf9 Nadav Amit 2018-09-20 197 u64 status : 5; > 6c94875799eaf9 Nadav Amit 2018-09-20 198 u64 reserved : PAGE_SHIFT - 5; > 6c94875799eaf9 Nadav Amit 2018-09-20 199 u64 pfn : 52; > 6c94875799eaf9 Nadav Amit 2018-09-20 @200 } __packed;
And the error seems non-sensical to me: it appears the number of bits was mistakenly considered as the name of the field by the test.
| |