Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220821000737.328590235@goodmis.org> <20220821000844.510643400@goodmis.org>
 <CAHk-=wjsxu782N0P+oMu35N7rJAOeh3buQFWJaZHZTNmVSB=3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5700ac75-f6a9-877e-4011-9b314f12b5ab@acm.org> <CAHk-=wjqkWEr0MRO5hWuBoTDgNUj4qQK8V_Y36et=61mdPztJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <02daa3d6-2847-d7e0-e23e-411076c6d4db@rasmusvillemoes.dk> <0163b361-14bf-7b4c-751a-14f1a004b1a9@acm.org>
 <CAHk-=wjMLb30d0WT_RyKBCX+JBkg3QQU6pCYkrV8f58Ya4Rgzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <b79c83af-e9fc-9fa0-dff7-f3a8a39887ff@acm.org> <CAHk-=wgV1F7_ErXkXT2wd+07LJd_3Vp-yVUKLROPiEgijeoTrQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <353e5bbd-cdd1-f818-6a2f-9a7c800f9879@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <353e5bbd-cdd1-f818-6a2f-9a7c800f9879@acm.org>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 24 Aug 2022 17:30:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whSZ20Hv4EyLDtUZGX4MsYmCLQ4+OOTbv1WEXfXDcxnWw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [for-linus][PATCH 01/10] tracing: Suppress sparse warnings
 triggered by is_signed_type()
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 4:28 PM Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org> wrote:
>
> Can you take a look at the following report from the kernel test robot:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/202208250433.EVz5pZkB-lkp@intel.com/ ?
>
> Do I see correctly that gcc reports a new warning for the above
> definition of is_signed_type() with W=1? I'm not sure how to get rid of
> that new gcc warning without reintroducing a sparse warning.

Indeed. It looks like now gcc recognizes it as a NULL pointer, and
then special-cases that and warns for it.

Oh, how very annoying.

Let me think about this.

               Linus