From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> Date: 2014-12-14 16:53:18
virtio wants to read bitwise types from userspace using get_user. At the
moment this triggers sparse errors, since the value is passed through an
integer.
Fix that up using __force.
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
---
arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> Date: 2014-12-15 00:05:37
On Sun, 2014-12-14 at 18:52 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
virtio wants to read bitwise types from userspace using get_user. At the
moment this triggers sparse errors, since the value is passed through an
integer.
Fix that up using __force.
You mean bitfields ? Argh ... we should just remove them from the
compiler and be done with it :-(
Ben.
quoted hunk
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
---
arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> Date: 2014-12-15 01:38:22
On Mon, 2014-12-15 at 11:05 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Sun, 2014-12-14 at 18:52 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
virtio wants to read bitwise types from userspace using get_user. At the
moment this triggers sparse errors, since the value is passed through an
integer.
Fix that up using __force.
You mean bitfields ? Argh ... we should just remove them from the
compiler and be done with it :-(
Oh... no I suppose you actually meant explicit endian fields, ie, __be32
or __le32 right ? Ack on that. It sucks a bit but I think it's
acceptable.
Cheers,
Ben.
Ben.
quoted
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
---
arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> Date: 2014-12-16 16:48:08
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 06:52:51PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
virtio wants to read bitwise types from userspace using get_user. At the
moment this triggers sparse errors, since the value is passed through an
integer.
Fix that up using __force.
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Ping.
Do powerpc maintainers consider fixing sparse errors
applicable for 3.19?
If yes, can you pls merge this patch?
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Date: 2014-12-16 23:50:49
On Tue, 2014-12-16 at 18:47 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 06:52:51PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
virtio wants to read bitwise types from userspace using get_user. At the
moment this triggers sparse errors, since the value is passed through an
integer.
Fix that up using __force.
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Ping.
Ping? You only sent it two days ago. And you only responded to my questions
yesterday evening.
Do powerpc maintainers consider fixing sparse errors
applicable for 3.19?
Yeah, with your expanded explanation I'm fine with it.
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> Date: 2014-12-17 00:53:10
On Tue, 2014-12-16 at 18:47 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 06:52:51PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
virtio wants to read bitwise types from userspace using get_user. At the
moment this triggers sparse errors, since the value is passed through an
integer.
Fix that up using __force.
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Ping.
Do powerpc maintainers consider fixing sparse errors
applicable for 3.19?
If yes, can you pls merge this patch?
Relax :-) Our patches are tracked in Patchwork and such fixes aren't
necessarily constrained by the merge window. Michael will probably
pick it up but don't expect systematic replies to patches in 2 days ...
Also, when sending a series like that where one of us only gets
CCed on one of the patch, it helps to make it clear whether you
only expect an ack or whether you expect us to take the patch.
Cheers,
Ben.
On Wednesday 17 December 2014 11:52:36 Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Tue, 2014-12-16 at 18:47 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 06:52:51PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
virtio wants to read bitwise types from userspace using get_user. At the
moment this triggers sparse errors, since the value is passed through an
integer.
Fix that up using __force.
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Ping.
Do powerpc maintainers consider fixing sparse errors
applicable for 3.19?
If yes, can you pls merge this patch?
Relax Our patches are tracked in Patchwork and such fixes aren't
necessarily constrained by the merge window. Michael will probably
pick it up but don't expect systematic replies to patches in 2 days ...
Also, when sending a series like that where one of us only gets
CCed on one of the patch, it helps to make it clear whether you
only expect an ack or whether you expect us to take the patch.
Michael initially asked how these patches should merged, and as I
discussed with him on IRC, I wouldn't take them through the asm-generic
tree for 3.19 at this point, but I offered to take the ones that
are not picked up by arch maintainers through that tree for 3.20.
I also recommend to him to clarify this with maintainers of the
architectures he cares about most so they can decide whether to pick
it up or not, which triggered the message above.
Arnd
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> Date: 2014-12-17 11:05:35
On Wed, 2014-12-17 at 11:53 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 17 December 2014 11:52:36 Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
quoted
On Tue, 2014-12-16 at 18:47 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 06:52:51PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
virtio wants to read bitwise types from userspace using get_user. At the
moment this triggers sparse errors, since the value is passed through an
integer.
Fix that up using __force.
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Ping.
Do powerpc maintainers consider fixing sparse errors
applicable for 3.19?
If yes, can you pls merge this patch?
Relax Our patches are tracked in Patchwork and such fixes aren't
necessarily constrained by the merge window. Michael will probably
pick it up but don't expect systematic replies to patches in 2 days ...
Also, when sending a series like that where one of us only gets
CCed on one of the patch, it helps to make it clear whether you
only expect an ack or whether you expect us to take the patch.
Michael initially asked how these patches should merged, and as I
discussed with him on IRC, I wouldn't take them through the asm-generic
tree for 3.19 at this point, but I offered to take the ones that
are not picked up by arch maintainers through that tree for 3.20.
I also recommend to him to clarify this with maintainers of the
architectures he cares about most so they can decide whether to pick
it up or not, which triggered the message above.
Ok, I incorrectly assumed the above was a nag for not looking at his
patch yet :)
I don't have any objection, but I'm leaving the merging for now to
Michael (and possibly for ever, we'll see ... :) as I'm on vacation
until end of January.
Cheers,
Ben.