Hi all,
After merging the btrfs tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
ppc64_defconfig) produced these warnings:
fs/btrfs/file-item.c:44: warning: expecting prototype for s size according to filesystem options(). Prototype was for btrfs_inode_safe_disk_i_size_write() instead
fs/btrfs/file-item.c:82: warning: expecting prototype for Mark range within a file as having a new extent inserted(). Prototype was for btrfs_inode_set_file_extent_range() instead
fs/btrfs/file-item.c:110: warning: expecting prototype for Marks an inode range as not having a backing extent(). Prototype was for btrfs_inode_clear_file_extent_range() instead
fs/btrfs/file-item.c:354: warning: wrong kernel-doc identifier on line:
* Lookup the checksum for the read bio in csum tree.
fs/btrfs/extent_map.c:402: warning: expecting prototype for Add new extent map to the extent tree(). Prototype was for add_extent_mapping() instead
fs/btrfs/extent_map.c:603: warning: expecting prototype for Add extent mapping into em_tree(). Prototype was for btrfs_add_extent_mapping() instead
fs/btrfs/extent_io.c:415: warning: expecting prototype for Such entry would have(). Prototype was for __etree_search() instead
fs/btrfs/extent_io.c:1609: warning: expecting prototype for Find a contiguous area of bits(). Prototype was for find_contiguous_extent_bit() instead
fs/btrfs/extent_io.c:1646: warning: expecting prototype for This range could start before(). Prototype was for find_first_clear_extent_bit() instead
fs/btrfs/extent_io.c:4260: warning: wrong kernel-doc identifier on line:
* Walk the list of dirty pages of the given address space and write all of them.
fs/btrfs/delayed-ref.c:81: warning: expecting prototype for s reservation(). Prototype was for btrfs_delayed_refs_rsv_release() instead
fs/btrfs/delayed-ref.c:130: warning: expecting prototype for Transfer bytes to our delayed refs rsv(). Prototype was for btrfs_migrate_to_delayed_refs_rsv() instead
fs/btrfs/delayed-ref.c:177: warning: expecting prototype for Refill based on our delayed refs usage(). Prototype was for btrfs_delayed_refs_rsv_refill() instead
fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c:1329: warning: expecting prototype for Write out cached info to an inode(). Prototype was for __btrfs_write_out_cache() instead
fs/btrfs/inode.c:3110: warning: expecting prototype for Wait for flushing all delayed iputs(). Prototype was for btrfs_wait_on_delayed_iputs() instead
fs/btrfs/backref.c:1525: warning: expecting prototype for Check if an extent is shared or not(). Prototype was for btrfs_check_shared() instead
fs/btrfs/discard.c:205: warning: expecting prototype for Wrap find_next_block_group(). Prototype was for peek_discard_list() instead
fs/btrfs/delalloc-space.c:207: warning: expecting prototype for Release any excessive reservation(). Prototype was for btrfs_inode_rsv_release() instead
fs/btrfs/delalloc-space.c:378: warning: expecting prototype for Release a metadata reservation for an inode(). Prototype was for btrfs_delalloc_release_metadata() instead
fs/btrfs/delalloc-space.c:477: warning: expecting prototype for Release data and metadata space for delalloc(). Prototype was for btrfs_delalloc_release_space() instead
fs/btrfs/space-info.c:572: warning: expecting prototype for Possibly commit the transaction if its ok to(). Prototype was for may_commit_transaction() instead
fs/btrfs/space-info.c:1373: warning: Function parameter or member 'start_ns' not described in 'handle_reserve_ticket'
fs/btrfs/space-info.c:1373: warning: Function parameter or member 'orig_bytes' not described in 'handle_reserve_ticket'
fs/btrfs/space-info.c:1373: warning: expecting prototype for Do the appropriate flushing and waiting for a ticket(). Prototype was for handle_reserve_ticket() instead
fs/btrfs/space-info.c:1478: warning: expecting prototype for s space(). Prototype was for __reserve_bytes() instead
fs/btrfs/space-info.c:1604: warning: expecting prototype for s space(). Prototype was for btrfs_reserve_metadata_bytes() instead
fs/btrfs/space-info.c:1640: warning: expecting prototype for Try to reserve data bytes for an allocation(). Prototype was for btrfs_reserve_data_bytes() instead
fs/btrfs/block-group.c:1583: warning: expecting prototype for Map a physical disk address to a list of logical addresses(). Prototype was for btrfs_rmap_block() instead
Introduced by commits
5001aa0708b9 ("btrfs: fix function description formats in file-item.c")
1cf15d8d422e ("btrfs: document modified parameter of add_extent_mapping")
d0295ba341a8 ("btrfs: fix parameter description of btrfs_add_extent_mapping")
b4a01a9a613b ("btrfs: fix parameter description for functions in extent_io.c")
28eef9969992 ("btrfs: fix parameter description in delayed-ref.c functions")
d89752bbf791 ("btrfs: improve parameter description for __btrfs_write_out_cache")
and so on ...
Presumably exposed by commit
52042e2db452 ("scripts: kernel-doc: validate kernel-doc markup with the actual names")
from the jc_docs tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 10:46:46AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the btrfs tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> ppc64_defconfig) produced these warnings:
>
> In file included from include/linux/swab.h:5,
> from include/uapi/linux/byteorder/big_endian.h:14,
> from include/linux/byteorder/big_endian.h:5,
> from arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/byteorder.h:14,
> from include/asm-generic/bitops/le.h:6,
> from arch/powerpc/include/asm/bitops.h:336,
> from include/linux/bitops.h:68,
> from fs/btrfs/extent_io.c:3:
> In function 'btrfs_disk_key_to_cpu',
> inlined from 'btrfs_item_key_to_cpu' at fs/btrfs/accessors.h:648:2,
> inlined from 'fiemap_find_last_extent_offset' at fs/btrfs/extent_io.c:2804:2,
> inlined from 'extent_fiemap' at fs/btrfs/extent_io.c:2879:8:
> include/uapi/linux/swab.h:128:28: warning: 'disk_key.objectid' may be used uninitialized [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
> 128 | #define __swab64(x) (__u64)__builtin_bswap64((__u64)(x))
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> include/uapi/linux/byteorder/big_endian.h:33:26: note: in expansion of macro '__swab64'
> 33 | #define __le64_to_cpu(x) __swab64((__force __u64)(__le64)(x))
> | ^~~~~~~~
> include/linux/byteorder/generic.h:87:21: note: in expansion of macro '__le64_to_cpu'
> 87 | #define le64_to_cpu __le64_to_cpu
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
> fs/btrfs/accessors.h:622:25: note: in expansion of macro 'le64_to_cpu'
> 622 | cpu->objectid = le64_to_cpu(disk->objectid);
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~
> In file included from fs/btrfs/extent_io.c:34:
> fs/btrfs/accessors.h: In function 'extent_fiemap':
> fs/btrfs/accessors.h:645:31: note: 'disk_key.objectid' was declared here
> 645 | struct btrfs_disk_key disk_key;
> | ^~~~~~~~
> In function 'fiemap_find_last_extent_offset',
> inlined from 'extent_fiemap' at fs/btrfs/extent_io.c:2879:8:
> fs/btrfs/extent_io.c:2805:33: warning: 'disk_key.type' may be used uninitialized [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
> 2805 | if (key.objectid != ino || key.type != BTRFS_EXTENT_DATA_KEY) {
> fs/btrfs/accessors.h: In function 'extent_fiemap':
> fs/btrfs/accessors.h:645:31: note: 'disk_key.type' was declared here
> 645 | struct btrfs_disk_key disk_key;
> | ^~~~~~~~
>
> I don't really have any idea what caused this (it *may* have been my
> change from gcc v12 to v13?).
I tried 12 and 13, no warnings on x86_64, however the report is on
powerpc. If this is on a big endian host it could be a valid warning, we
have an optmization where the on-disk format endianity matches CPU
(little endian) then the structures btrfs_disk_key and btrfs_key are
equivalent and no coversion is needed.
There were some changes that might be related and newly added to
for-next so we don't have any other reference point, I'll take a look.
Hi David,
On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 13:20:11 +0200 David Sterba <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I tried 12 and 13, no warnings on x86_64, however the report is on
> powerpc. If this is on a big endian host it could be a valid warning, we
> have an optmization where the on-disk format endianity matches CPU
> (little endian) then the structures btrfs_disk_key and btrfs_key are
> equivalent and no coversion is needed.
>
> There were some changes that might be related and newly added to
> for-next so we don't have any other reference point, I'll take a look.
This is indeed a big endian build (big endian cross build on a little
endian host). I also did *not* get these warnings on my x86_64 build.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Hi Stephen,
On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 22:20:06 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 13:20:11 +0200 David Sterba <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I tried 12 and 13, no warnings on x86_64, however the report is on
> > powerpc. If this is on a big endian host it could be a valid warning, we
> > have an optmization where the on-disk format endianity matches CPU
> > (little endian) then the structures btrfs_disk_key and btrfs_key are
> > equivalent and no coversion is needed.
> >
> > There were some changes that might be related and newly added to
> > for-next so we don't have any other reference point, I'll take a look.
>
> This is indeed a big endian build (big endian cross build on a little
> endian host). I also did *not* get these warnings on my x86_64 build.
But I do get them from my s390 defconfig build. Any progress?
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell