Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <201903140234.4FpTWdW3%lkp@intel.com> <20190314083758.GA16658@quack2.suse.cz>
 <CAOQ4uxhZH9=U63J1_bVrMbNO-Quy-8S300Qi6VmZxvKwYCogQQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190314123811.GH16658@quack2.suse.cz> <20190314143158.GC27249@linux-mips.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190314143158.GC27249@linux-mips.org>
From:   Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Mar 2019 18:16:35 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxiEkczB7PNCXegFC-eYb9zAGaio_o=OgHAJHFd7eavBxA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.c:198:2: note: in expansion of macro 'pr_warn_ratelimited'
To:     Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, kbuild-all@01.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, Paul Burton <paul.burton@mips.com>,
        James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:34 PM Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 01:38:11PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> > On Thu 14-03-19 14:01:18, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 10:37 AM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > AFAICS this is the known problem with weird mips definitions of
> > > > __kernel_fsid_t which uses long whereas all other architectures use int,
> > > > right? Seeing that mips can actually have 8-byte longs, I guess this
> > > > bogosity is just wired in the kernel API and we cannot easily fix it in
> > > > mips (mips guys, correct me if I'm wrong). So what if we just
> > > > unconditionally typed printed values to unsigned int to silence the
> > > > warning?
> > >
> > > I don't understand why. To me that sounds like papering over a bug.
> > >
> > > See this reply from mips developer Paul Burton:
> > > https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=154783680019904&w=2
> > > mips developers have not replied to the question why __kernel_fsid_t
> > > should use long.
> >
> > Ah, right. I've missed that mips defines __kernel_fsid_t only if
> > sizeof(long) == 4. OK, than fixing MIPS headers is definitely what we ought
> > to do. Mips guys, any reason why the patch from Ralf didn't get merged yet?
>
> Paul's patch :-)
>
> As for the reason why the definition is as it is - 32-bit MIPS was
> born using long, then in 2000 64-bit MIPS started off as arch/mips64
> using int.  Eventually the two ports were combined using:
>
> ypedef struct {
> #if (_MIPS_SZLONG == 32)
>         long    val[2];
> #endif
> #if (_MIPS_SZLONG == 64)
>         int     val[2];
> #endif
> } __kernel_fsid_t;
>
> A desparate attempt to use asm-generic where ever possible then resulted
> in the confusing definition we'e having today.
>
> Normally APIs are cast into stone not to be changed.  But fsid is used in
> struct statfs and the man page states "Nobody knows what f_fsid is supposed
> to contain (but see below)." and f_fsid is supposed to be opaque anyway so
> I'm wondering if something could break at all.  Researching that.
>

Its content is opaque, but its size must be equal to that of fsid_t
from glibc/toolchain headers. Do the mips32 glibc headers also
define fsid_t as long val[2], or do they define it as int val[2]?

Thanks,
Amir.