Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-89613-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <202403020457.RCJoQ3ts-lkp@intel.com> <87edctwr6y.ffs@tglx>
 <87a5nhwpus.ffs@tglx> <87y1b0vp8m.ffs@tglx> <87sf18vdsq.ffs@tglx> <87le70uwf0.ffs@tglx>
In-Reply-To: <87le70uwf0.ffs@tglx>
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2024 14:49:15 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wiWhfdc4Sw2VBq_2nL2NDxmZS32xG4P7mBVwABGqUoJnw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h:698:16: sparse: sparse:
 incorrect type in initializer (different address spaces)
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>, oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>, x86@kernel.org, 
	Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>, 
	Sparse Mailing-list <linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 at 14:00, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
> I had commented out both. But the real reason is the EXPORT_SYMBOL,
> which obviously wants to be EXPORT_PER_CPU_SYMBOL_GPL...

Side note: while it's nice to hear that sparse kind of got this right,
I wonder what gcc does when we start using the named address spaces
for percpu variables.

We actively make EXPORT_PER_CPU_SYMBOL_XYZ be a no-op for sparse
exactly because sparse ended up warning about the regular
EXPORT_SYMBOL, and we didn't have any "real" per-cpu export model.

So EXPORT_PER_CPU_SYMBOL_GPL() is kind of an artificial "shut up
sparse". But with __seg_gs/fs support for native percpu symbols with
gcc, I wonder if we'll hit the same thing. Or is there something that
makes gcc not warn about the named address spaces?

Because in many ways the gcc named address spaces _should_ be pretty
much equivalent to the sparse ones.

            Linus