Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-70793-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2024 22:58:07 -0800
From: Calvin Owens <jcalvinowens@gmail.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>, Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org>,
	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: Silence gcc warnings about arch ABI drift
Message-ID: <ZdL7_-2VCJqjn634@gmail.com>
References: <fe51512baa18e1480ce997fc535813ce6a0b0721.1708286962.git.jcalvinowens@gmail.com>
 <431dd956-ad31-4da8-ad42-34f7380824bb@app.fastmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <431dd956-ad31-4da8-ad42-34f7380824bb@app.fastmail.com>

On Monday 02/19 at 07:21 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024, at 05:09, Calvin Owens wrote:
> > 32-bit arm builds uniquely emit a lot of spam like this:
> >
> >     fs/bcachefs/backpointers.c: In function ‘extent_matches_bp’:
> >     fs/bcachefs/backpointers.c:15:13: note: parameter passing for 
> > argument of type ‘struct bch_backpointer’ changed in GCC 9.1
> >
> > Apply the arm64 change from commit ebcc5928c5d9 ("arm64: Silence gcc
> > warnings about arch ABI drift") to silence them. It seems like Dave's
> > original rationale applies here too.
> >
> > Cc: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Calvin Owens <jcalvinowens@gmail.com>
> > ---
>
> I think these should be addressed in bcachefs instead.

That seems reasonable to me. For clarity, I just happened to notice this
while doing allyesconfig cross builds for something entirely unrelated.

I'll take it up with them. It's not a big problem from my POV, the notes
don't cause -Werror builds to fail or anything like that.

Thanks,
Calvin

> While it's not the fault of bcachefs that the calling
> convention changed between gcc versions, have a look at
> the actual structure layout:
> 
> struct bch_val {
>         __u64           __nothing[0];
> };
> struct bpos {
>         /*
>          * Word order matches machine byte order - btree code treats a bpos as a
>          * single large integer, for search/comparison purposes
>          *
>          * Note that wherever a bpos is embedded in another on disk data
>          * structure, it has to be byte swabbed when reading in metadata that
>          * wasn't written in native endian order:
>          */
> #if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
>         __u32           snapshot;
>         __u64           offset;
>         __u64           inode;
> #elif __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
>         __u64           inode;
>         __u64           offset;         /* Points to end of extent - sectors */
>         __u32           snapshot;
> #else
> #error edit for your odd byteorder.
> #endif
> } __packed
> struct bch_backpointer {
>         struct bch_val          v;
>         __u8                    btree_id;
>         __u8                    level;
>         __u8                    data_type;
>         __u64                   bucket_offset:40;
>         __u32                   bucket_len;
>         struct bpos             pos;
> } __packed __aligned(8);
> 
> This is not something that should ever be passed by value
> into a function.
> 
>       Arnd