[PATCH] powerpc/ptrace: Add prototype for function pt_regs_check

`pt_regs_check` is a dummy function, its purpose is to break the build
if struct pt_regs and struct user_pt_regs don't match.

This function has no functionnal purpose, and will get eliminated at
link time or after init depending on CONFIG_LD_DEAD_CODE_DATA_ELIMINATION

This commit adds a prototype to fix warning at W=1:

  arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c:3339:13: error: no previous prototype for ‘pt_regs_check’ [-Werror=missing-prototypes]

Suggested-by: Christophe Leroy <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Malaterre <redacted>
---
 arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c
index a398999d0770..341c0060b4c8 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c

@@ -3338,6 +3338,10 @@ void do_syscall_trace_leave(struct pt_regs *regs)
 	user_enter();
 }
 
+void __init pt_regs_check(void);
+/* dummy function, its purpose is to break the build if struct pt_regs and
+ * struct user_pt_regs don't match.
+ */
 void __init pt_regs_check(void)
 {
 	BUILD_BUG_ON(offsetof(struct pt_regs, gpr) !=

-- 
2.19.2

On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 4:46 PM Mathieu Malaterre [off-list ref] wrote:

Another trick which seems to work with GCC is:

-void __init pt_regs_check(void)
+static inline void __init pt_regs_check(void)

 void __init pt_regs_check(void)
 {
        BUILD_BUG_ON(offsetof(struct pt_regs, gpr) !=
--
2.19.2

Le 15/02/2019 à 09:11, Mathieu Malaterre a écrit :

On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 4:46 PM Mathieu Malaterre [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

`pt_regs_check` is a dummy function, its purpose is to break the build
if struct pt_regs and struct user_pt_regs don't match.

This function has no functionnal purpose, and will get eliminated at
link time or after init depending on CONFIG_LD_DEAD_CODE_DATA_ELIMINATION

This commit adds a prototype to fix warning at W=1:

   arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c:3339:13: error: no previous prototype for ‘pt_regs_check’ [-Werror=missing-prototypes]

Suggested-by: Christophe Leroy <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Malaterre <redacted>
---
  arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c | 4 ++++
  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c
index a398999d0770..341c0060b4c8 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c

@@ -3338,6 +3338,10 @@ void do_syscall_trace_leave(struct pt_regs *regs)
         user_enter();
  }

+void __init pt_regs_check(void);
+/* dummy function, its purpose is to break the build if struct pt_regs and
+ * struct user_pt_regs don't match.
+ */

Another trick which seems to work with GCC is:

-void __init pt_regs_check(void)
+static inline void __init pt_regs_check(void)

Does this really work ? Did you test to ensure that the BUILD_BUG_ON 
still detect mismatch between struct pt_regs and struct user_pt_regs ?

Christophe

quoted

  void __init pt_regs_check(void)
  {
         BUILD_BUG_ON(offsetof(struct pt_regs, gpr) !=
--
2.19.2

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 9:21 AM Christophe Leroy
[off-list ref] wrote:

Le 15/02/2019 à 09:11, Mathieu Malaterre a écrit :

quoted

On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 4:46 PM Mathieu Malaterre [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

`pt_regs_check` is a dummy function, its purpose is to break the build
if struct pt_regs and struct user_pt_regs don't match.

This function has no functionnal purpose, and will get eliminated at
link time or after init depending on CONFIG_LD_DEAD_CODE_DATA_ELIMINATION

This commit adds a prototype to fix warning at W=1:

   arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c:3339:13: error: no previous prototype for ‘pt_regs_check’ [-Werror=missing-prototypes]

Suggested-by: Christophe Leroy <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Malaterre <redacted>
---
  arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c | 4 ++++
  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c
index a398999d0770..341c0060b4c8 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c

@@ -3338,6 +3338,10 @@ void do_syscall_trace_leave(struct pt_regs *regs)
         user_enter();
  }

+void __init pt_regs_check(void);
+/* dummy function, its purpose is to break the build if struct pt_regs and
+ * struct user_pt_regs don't match.
+ */

Another trick which seems to work with GCC is:

-void __init pt_regs_check(void)
+static inline void __init pt_regs_check(void)

Does this really work ? Did you test to ensure that the BUILD_BUG_ON
still detect mismatch between struct pt_regs and struct user_pt_regs ?

My bad, I was unaware of GCC behavior for static inline in this case.
Sorry for the noise.
Original ugly patch does work though.

quoted

quoted

  void __init pt_regs_check(void)
  {
         BUILD_BUG_ON(offsetof(struct pt_regs, gpr) !=
--
2.19.2

On Sat, 2018-12-08 at 15:46:23 UTC, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:

`pt_regs_check` is a dummy function, its purpose is to break the build
if struct pt_regs and struct user_pt_regs don't match.

This function has no functionnal purpose, and will get eliminated at
link time or after init depending on CONFIG_LD_DEAD_CODE_DATA_ELIMINATION

This commit adds a prototype to fix warning at W=1:

  arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c:3339:13: error: no previous prototype for ���pt_regs_check��� [-Werror=missing-prototypes]

Suggested-by: Christophe Leroy <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Malaterre <redacted>

Applied to powerpc next, thanks.

https://git.kernel.org/powerpc/c/5c74f79958682fccd82a6029c53859d1dab3b239

cheers