Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 23 Mar 2021 08:35:59 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] static_call: fix function type mismatch
Message-ID: <YFmaXxwcAb9bPchv@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20210322170711.1855115-1-arnd@kernel.org>
 <20210322153214.25d869b1@gandalf.local.home>
 <YFkCZuOwe37d2bV+@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAK8P3a2sz4emewH_HA+nsf0e5tP6qtAxhBOFucmzW4OPDJASdQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a2sz4emewH_HA+nsf0e5tP6qtAxhBOFucmzW4OPDJASdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 10:18:17PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> > Steve is correct. Also, why is that warning correct? On x86 we return in
> > RAX, and using int will simply not inspect the upper 32 bits there.
> 
> I think the code works correctly on all architectures we support because
> both 'int' and 'long' are returned in a register with any unused bits cleared.
> It is however undefined behavior in C because 'int' and 'long' are not
> compatible types, and the calling conventions don't have to allow this.

Then please kill the warning, it's bullshit.

> > And I'm fairly sure I had a pointer user somewhere recently.
> 
> I've only tested my series with 5.12-rc so far, but don't get any other
> such warnings. Maybe it's in linux-next?

No, it's in Linus' tree, see commit:

  c8e2fe13d1d1 ("x86/perf: Use RET0 as default for guest_get_msrs to handle "no PMU" case")