From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A21DC433EF for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 10:43:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5190460E53 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 10:43:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235979AbhJKKpC (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Oct 2021 06:45:02 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48398 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235446AbhJKKpB (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Oct 2021 06:45:01 -0400 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [IPv6:2a0a:51c0:0:12e:550::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56DABC061570 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 03:43:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 12:42:57 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1633948979; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=vQZKyD/lIPAGKb60VxQ7ByQVmg9mZPtbvQcoBA6951U=; b=iYvcF+X3acZriOjfxO5mfJl4yge9Pl0lBW8efXT7OfZHJU4XjThpxAZ/HvTB4L3+t2qcB+ K3ya/BgcuZPwjjky6NxzXozJXey9LVHQVTc4KQrdd3VQAfwucUTzE/3Z//T4ULgW7nwzNJ uK9L4Epi7nIBgtreAxzPp0+uO+XlAR5XJOwwuytaUA3Ye7m3UKfcJgEPtdaD5pVr9WBfvr inQi0qJ9KOgRNoV4hEW9o5AQ52z+x8f3WbUD8LteknEIigsEGiMoP+lNNHSuXL1UVUCqpe N6gTexQIb9ihW+tTffeEIvMuXV3/kUYqhTHpKGYleH3k7DteTbqHxJ5xkybsig== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1633948979; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=vQZKyD/lIPAGKb60VxQ7ByQVmg9mZPtbvQcoBA6951U=; b=sReWmHb494X3TDOIg8+mrXBZWincIH2Ru6LthZS+k/VjRZXYZSOqjwispIApR/BqJB9pHH owG3Ww+64O1dCjAw== From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: kernel test robot Cc: Thomas Gleixner , kbuild-all@lists.01.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [rt-devel:linux-5.15.y-rt-rebase 85/155] drivers/md/raid5.c:2222:20: sparse: sparse: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces) Message-ID: <20211011104257.tyxo5pm4jln3a7ng@linutronix.de> References: <202110092249.dDmDslZ6-lkp@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <202110092249.dDmDslZ6-lkp@intel.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2021-10-09 22:20:57 [+0800], kernel test robot wrote: > sparse warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>) > >> drivers/md/raid5.c:2222:20: sparse: sparse: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces) @@ expected struct spinlock [usertype] *lock @@ got struct spinlock [noderef] __percpu * @@ > drivers/md/raid5.c:2222:20: sparse: expected struct spinlock [usertype] *lock > drivers/md/raid5.c:2222:20: sparse: got struct spinlock [noderef] __percpu * > drivers/md/raid5.c:2281:22: sparse: sparse: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces) @@ expected struct spinlock [usertype] *lock @@ got struct spinlock [noderef] __percpu * @@ > drivers/md/raid5.c:2281:22: sparse: expected struct spinlock [usertype] *lock > drivers/md/raid5.c:2281:22: sparse: got struct spinlock [noderef] __percpu * I think the code itself is correct but sparse got confused by the definition of the struct. Defining raid5_percpu on its own makes the warning go away: diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.h b/drivers/md/raid5.h --- a/drivers/md/raid5.h +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.h @@ -559,6 +559,17 @@ struct r5pending_data { struct bio_list bios; }; +/* per cpu variables */ +struct raid5_percpu { + spinlock_t lock; /* Protection for -RT */ + struct page *spare_page; /* Used when checking P/Q in raid6 */ + void *scribble; /* space for constructing buffer + * lists and performing address + * conversions + */ + int scribble_obj_size; +}; + struct r5conf { struct hlist_head *stripe_hashtbl; /* only protect corresponding hash list and inactive_list */ @@ -634,15 +645,7 @@ struct r5conf { */ int recovery_disabled; /* per cpu variables */ - struct raid5_percpu { - spinlock_t lock; /* Protection for -RT */ - struct page *spare_page; /* Used when checking P/Q in raid6 */ - void *scribble; /* space for constructing buffer - * lists and performing address - * conversions - */ - int scribble_obj_size; - } __percpu *percpu; + struct raid5_percpu __percpu *percpu; int scribble_disks; int scribble_sectors; struct hlist_node node; The RCU warnings look valid since there are __rcu annotations. Sebastian