| Message ID | 20231123185821.2272504-1-christoph.muellner@vrull.eu |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | tools: selftests: riscv: Fix compiler warnings | expand |
Ping. It would be great to have these compiler warnings fixed before the release. On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 10:40 AM Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 07:58:16PM +0100, Christoph Muellner wrote: > > From: Christoph Müllner <christoph.muellner@vrull.eu> > > > > When building the RISC-V selftests with a riscv32 compiler I ran into > > a couple of compiler warnings. While riscv32 support for these tests is > > questionable, the fixes are so trivial that it is probably best to simply > > apply them. > > > > Note that the missing-include patch and some format string warnings > > are also relevant for riscv64. > > I also posted [1] a couple days ago for the format warnings, but, as this > series also includes rv32 fixes, then we can drop [1] in favor of this. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231122171821.130854-2-ajones@ventanamicro.com/ > > For the series, > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> > > Thanks, > drew
On 23/11/2023 19:58, Christoph Muellner wrote: > From: Christoph Müllner <christoph.muellner@vrull.eu> > > GCC prints a couple of format string warnings when compiling > the hwprobe test. Let's follow the recommendation in > Documentation/printk-formats.txt to fix these warnings. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Müllner <christoph.muellner@vrull.eu> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/hwprobe.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/hwprobe.c b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/hwprobe.c > index c474891df307..abb825811c70 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/hwprobe.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/hwprobe.c > @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) > /* Fail if the kernel claims not to recognize a base key. */ > if ((i < 4) && (pairs[i].key != i)) > ksft_exit_fail_msg("Failed to recognize base key: key != i, " > - "key=%ld, i=%ld\n", pairs[i].key, i); > + "key=%lld, i=%ld\n", pairs[i].key, i); > > if (pairs[i].key != RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR) > continue; > @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) > if (pairs[i].value & RISCV_HWPROBE_BASE_BEHAVIOR_IMA) > continue; > > - ksft_exit_fail_msg("Unexpected pair: (%ld, %ld)\n", pairs[i].key, pairs[i].value); > + ksft_exit_fail_msg("Unexpected pair: (%lld, %llu)\n", pairs[i].key, pairs[i].value); > } > > out = riscv_hwprobe(pairs, 8, 0, 0, 0); You can add: Reviewed-by: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@rivosinc.com> Thanks! Alex
On 23/11/2023 19:58, Christoph Muellner wrote: > From: Christoph Müllner <christoph.muellner@vrull.eu> > > When building the mm tests with a riscv32 compiler, we see a range > of shift-count-overflow errors from shifting 1UL by more than 32 bits > in do_mmaps(). Since, the relevant code is only called from code that > is gated by `__riscv_xlen == 64`, we can just apply the same gating > to do_mmaps(). > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Müllner <christoph.muellner@vrull.eu> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/riscv/mm/mmap_test.h | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/mm/mmap_test.h b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/mm/mmap_test.h > index 9b8434f62f57..2e0db9c5be6c 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/mm/mmap_test.h > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/mm/mmap_test.h > @@ -18,6 +18,8 @@ struct addresses { > int *on_56_addr; > }; > > +// Only works on 64 bit > +#if __riscv_xlen == 64 > static inline void do_mmaps(struct addresses *mmap_addresses) > { > /* > @@ -50,6 +52,7 @@ static inline void do_mmaps(struct addresses *mmap_addresses) > mmap_addresses->on_56_addr = > mmap(on_56_bits, 5 * sizeof(int), prot, flags, 0, 0); > } > +#endif /* __riscv_xlen == 64 */ > > static inline int memory_layout(void) > { You can add: Reviewed-by: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@rivosinc.com> Thanks! Alex
On 23/11/2023 19:58, Christoph Muellner wrote: > From: Christoph Müllner <christoph.muellner@vrull.eu> > > GCC prints a couple of format string warnings when compiling > the hwprobe test. Let's follow the recommendation in > Documentation/printk-formats.txt to fix these warnings. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Müllner <christoph.muellner@vrull.eu> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/hwprobe.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/hwprobe.c b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/hwprobe.c > index c474891df307..abb825811c70 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/hwprobe.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/hwprobe.c > @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) > /* Fail if the kernel claims not to recognize a base key. */ > if ((i < 4) && (pairs[i].key != i)) > ksft_exit_fail_msg("Failed to recognize base key: key != i, " > - "key=%ld, i=%ld\n", pairs[i].key, i); > + "key=%lld, i=%ld\n", pairs[i].key, i); > > if (pairs[i].key != RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR) > continue; > @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) > if (pairs[i].value & RISCV_HWPROBE_BASE_BEHAVIOR_IMA) > continue; > > - ksft_exit_fail_msg("Unexpected pair: (%ld, %ld)\n", pairs[i].key, pairs[i].value); > + ksft_exit_fail_msg("Unexpected pair: (%lld, %llu)\n", pairs[i].key, pairs[i].value); > } > > out = riscv_hwprobe(pairs, 8, 0, 0, 0); You can add: Reviewed-by: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@rivosinc.com> Thanks! Alex
On 23/11/2023 19:58, Christoph Muellner wrote: > From: Christoph Müllner <christoph.muellner@vrull.eu> > > GCC raises the following warning: > warning: 'status' may be used uninitialized > The warning comes from the fact, that the signature of waitpid() is > unknown and therefore the initialization of GCC cannot be guessed. > Let's add the relevant header to address this warning. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Müllner <christoph.muellner@vrull.eu> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/riscv/vector/vstate_exec_nolibc.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/vector/vstate_exec_nolibc.c b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/vector/vstate_exec_nolibc.c > index 2c0d2b1126c1..1f9969bed235 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/vector/vstate_exec_nolibc.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/vector/vstate_exec_nolibc.c > @@ -1,4 +1,7 @@ > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only > + > +#include <linux/wait.h> > + > #define THIS_PROGRAM "./vstate_exec_nolibc" > > int main(int argc, char **argv) You can add: Reviewed-by: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@rivosinc.com> Thanks! Alex
On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 2:58 AM Christoph Muellner <christoph.muellner@vrull.eu> wrote: > > From: Christoph Müllner <christoph.muellner@vrull.eu> > > GCC raises the following warning: > warning: 'status' may be used uninitialized > The warning comes from the fact, that the signature of waitpid() is > unknown and therefore the initialization of GCC cannot be guessed. > Let's add the relevant header to address this warning. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Müllner <christoph.muellner@vrull.eu> Reviewed-by: Andy Chiu <andy.chiu@sifive.com> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/riscv/vector/vstate_exec_nolibc.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/vector/vstate_exec_nolibc.c b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/vector/vstate_exec_nolibc.c > index 2c0d2b1126c1..1f9969bed235 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/vector/vstate_exec_nolibc.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/vector/vstate_exec_nolibc.c > @@ -1,4 +1,7 @@ > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only > + > +#include <linux/wait.h> > + > #define THIS_PROGRAM "./vstate_exec_nolibc" > > int main(int argc, char **argv) > -- > 2.41.0 >
Hello: This series was applied to riscv/linux.git (for-next) by Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>: On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 19:58:16 +0100 you wrote: > From: Christoph Müllner <christoph.muellner@vrull.eu> > > When building the RISC-V selftests with a riscv32 compiler I ran into > a couple of compiler warnings. While riscv32 support for these tests is > questionable, the fixes are so trivial that it is probably best to simply > apply them. > > [...] Here is the summary with links: - [1/5] tools: selftests: riscv: Fix compile warnings in hwprobe https://git.kernel.org/riscv/c/b91c26fdb0e8 - [2/5] tools: selftests: riscv: Fix compile warnings in cbo https://git.kernel.org/riscv/c/ac7b2a02d62f - [3/5] tools: selftests: riscv: Add missing include for vector test https://git.kernel.org/riscv/c/b250c9089841 - [4/5] tools: selftests: riscv: Fix compile warnings in vector tests https://git.kernel.org/riscv/c/e1baf5e68ed1 - [5/5] tools: selftests: riscv: Fix compile warnings in mm tests https://git.kernel.org/riscv/c/12c16919652b You are awesome, thank you!
From: Christoph Müllner <christoph.muellner@vrull.eu> When building the RISC-V selftests with a riscv32 compiler I ran into a couple of compiler warnings. While riscv32 support for these tests is questionable, the fixes are so trivial that it is probably best to simply apply them. Note that the missing-include patch and some format string warnings are also relevant for riscv64. Christoph Müllner (5): tools: selftests: riscv: Fix compile warnings in hwprobe tools: selftests: riscv: Fix compile warnings in cbo tools: selftests: riscv: Add missing include for vector test tools: selftests: riscv: Fix compile warnings in vector tests tools: selftests: riscv: Fix compile warnings in mm tests tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/cbo.c | 6 +++--- tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/hwprobe.c | 4 ++-- tools/testing/selftests/riscv/mm/mmap_test.h | 3 +++ tools/testing/selftests/riscv/vector/v_initval_nolibc.c | 2 +- tools/testing/selftests/riscv/vector/vstate_exec_nolibc.c | 3 +++ tools/testing/selftests/riscv/vector/vstate_prctl.c | 4 ++-- 6 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)