We get a false-positive warning in linux-next for the mlx5 driver:
infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c: In function ‘mlx5_ib_reg_user_mr’:
infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c:1172:5: error: ‘order’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c:1161:6: note: ‘order’ was declared here
infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c:1173:6: error: ‘ncont’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c:1160:6: note: ‘ncont’ was declared here
infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c:1173:6: error: ‘page_shift’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c:1158:6: note: ‘page_shift’ was declared here
infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c:1143:13: error: ‘npages’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c:1159:6: note: ‘npages’ was declared here
I had a trivial workaround for gcc-5 or higher, but that didn't work
on gcc-4.9 unfortunately.
The only way I found to avoid the warnings for gcc-4.9, short of
initializing each of the arguments first was to change the calling
conventions to separate the error code from the umem pointer. This
avoids casting the error codes from one pointer to another incompatible
pointer, and lets gcc figure out when that the data is actually valid
whenever we return successfully.
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
---
drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
index d4ad672b905b..88d8d292677b 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
@@ -815,29 +815,33 @@ static void prep_umr_unreg_wqe(struct mlx5_ib_dev *dev,
umrwr->mkey = key;
}
-static struct ib_umem *mr_umem_get(struct ib_pd *pd, u64 start, u64 length,
- int access_flags, int *npages,
- int *page_shift, int *ncont, int *order)
+static int mr_umem_get(struct ib_pd *pd, u64 start, u64 length,
+ int access_flags, struct ib_umem ** umem,
+ int *npages, int *page_shift, int *ncont,
+ int *order)
{
struct mlx5_ib_dev *dev = to_mdev(pd->device);
- struct ib_umem *umem = ib_umem_get(pd->uobject->context, start, length,
- access_flags, 0);
- if (IS_ERR(umem)) {
+ int err;
+
+ *umem = ib_umem_get(pd->uobject->context, start, length,
+ access_flags, 0);
+ err = PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(*umem);
+ if (err < 0) {
mlx5_ib_err(dev, "umem get failed (%ld)\n", PTR_ERR(umem));
- return (void *)umem;
+ return err;
}
- mlx5_ib_cont_pages(umem, start, npages, page_shift, ncont, order);
+ mlx5_ib_cont_pages(*umem, start, npages, page_shift, ncont, order);
if (!*npages) {
mlx5_ib_warn(dev, "avoid zero region\n");
- ib_umem_release(umem);
- return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
+ ib_umem_release(*umem);
+ return -EINVAL;
}
mlx5_ib_dbg(dev, "npages %d, ncont %d, order %d, page_shift %d\n",
*npages, *ncont, *order, *page_shift);
- return umem;
+ return 0;
}
static void mlx5_ib_umr_done(struct ib_cq *cq, struct ib_wc *wc)
@@ -1163,11 +1167,11 @@ struct ib_mr *mlx5_ib_reg_user_mr(struct ib_pd *pd, u64 start, u64 length,
mlx5_ib_dbg(dev, "start 0x%llx, virt_addr 0x%llx, length 0x%llx, access_flags 0x%x\n",
start, virt_addr, length, access_flags);
- umem = mr_umem_get(pd, start, length, access_flags, &npages,
+ err = mr_umem_get(pd, start, length, access_flags, &umem, &npages,
&page_shift, &ncont, &order);
- if (IS_ERR(umem))
- return (void *)umem;
+ if (err < 0)
+ return ERR_PTR(err);
if (use_umr(order)) {
mr = reg_umr(pd, umem, virt_addr, length, ncont, page_shift,
@@ -1341,10 +1345,9 @@ int mlx5_ib_rereg_user_mr(struct ib_mr *ib_mr, int flags, u64 start,
*/
flags |= IB_MR_REREG_TRANS;
ib_umem_release(mr->umem);
- mr->umem = mr_umem_get(pd, addr, len, access_flags, &npages,
- &page_shift, &ncont, &order);
- if (IS_ERR(mr->umem)) {
- err = PTR_ERR(mr->umem);
+ err = mr_umem_get(pd, addr, len, access_flags, &mr->umem,
+ &npages, &page_shift, &ncont, &order);
+ if (err < 0) {
mr->umem = NULL;
return err;
}
--
2.9.0
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 05:16:42PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> We get a false-positive warning in linux-next for the mlx5 driver:
>
> infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c: In function ‘mlx5_ib_reg_user_mr’:
> infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c:1172:5: error: ‘order’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
> infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c:1161:6: note: ‘order’ was declared here
> infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c:1173:6: error: ‘ncont’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
> infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c:1160:6: note: ‘ncont’ was declared here
> infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c:1173:6: error: ‘page_shift’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
> infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c:1158:6: note: ‘page_shift’ was declared here
> infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c:1143:13: error: ‘npages’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
> infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c:1159:6: note: ‘npages’ was declared here
>
> I had a trivial workaround for gcc-5 or higher, but that didn't work
> on gcc-4.9 unfortunately.
>
> The only way I found to avoid the warnings for gcc-4.9, short of
> initializing each of the arguments first was to change the calling
> conventions to separate the error code from the umem pointer. This
> avoids casting the error codes from one pointer to another incompatible
> pointer, and lets gcc figure out when that the data is actually valid
> whenever we return successfully.
>
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
Thanks Arnd for fixing it.
I have a very small comment which is not related to functionality.
Rather than that,
Acked-by: Leon Romanovsky <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> index d4ad672b905b..88d8d292677b 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> @@ -815,29 +815,33 @@ static void prep_umr_unreg_wqe(struct mlx5_ib_dev *dev,
> umrwr->mkey = key;
> }
>
> -static struct ib_umem *mr_umem_get(struct ib_pd *pd, u64 start, u64 length,
> - int access_flags, int *npages,
> - int *page_shift, int *ncont, int *order)
> +static int mr_umem_get(struct ib_pd *pd, u64 start, u64 length,
> + int access_flags, struct ib_umem ** umem,
I wonder if checkpatch does differentiate between "struct ib_umem ** umem"
and "struct ib_umem **umem". According to coding style, the second is preferable.
> + int *npages, int *page_shift, int *ncont,
> + int *order)
On Monday, October 24, 2016 8:06:42 PM CEST Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>
> Acked-by: Leon Romanovsky <[email protected]>
Thanks!
> > drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> > index d4ad672b905b..88d8d292677b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> > @@ -815,29 +815,33 @@ static void prep_umr_unreg_wqe(struct mlx5_ib_dev *dev,
> > umrwr->mkey = key;
> > }
> >
> > -static struct ib_umem *mr_umem_get(struct ib_pd *pd, u64 start, u64 length,
> > - int access_flags, int *npages,
> > - int *page_shift, int *ncont, int *order)
> > +static int mr_umem_get(struct ib_pd *pd, u64 start, u64 length,
> > + int access_flags, struct ib_umem ** umem,
>
> I wonder if checkpatch does differentiate between "struct ib_umem ** umem"
> and "struct ib_umem **umem". According to coding style, the second is preferable.
It was unintended, I'll send a v2 patch in a minute.
Arnd