Hello,
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019, Jacky Hu wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 10:10:20AM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
> > Hi Jacky,
> >
> > Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
> >
> > [auto build test WARNING on ipvs-next/master]
> > [also build test WARNING on v5.1-rc1 next-20190306]
> > [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to
> > help improve the system]
> >
> > url:
> > https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Jacky-Hu/ipvs-allow-tunneling-with-gue-encapsulation/20190318-070156
> > base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/horms/ipvs-next.git
> > master
> > reproduce:
> > # apt-get install sparse
> > make ARCH=x86_64 allmodconfig
> > make C=1 CF='-fdiagnostic-prefix -D__CHECK_ENDIAN__'
> >
> >
> > sparse warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>)
> >
> > net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_ctl.c:835:42: sparse: incorrect type in
> > argument 2 (different base types) @@ expected int [signed] i @@ got
> > restricted __be1int [signed] i @@
> > net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_ctl.c:835:42: expected int [signed] i
> > net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_ctl.c:835:42: got restricted __be16
> > [usertype] tun_port
> > net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_ctl.c:1197:44: sparse: expression using
> > sizeof(void)
> > >> net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_ctl.c:3207:37: sparse: incorrect type in
> > >> argument 3 (different base types) @@ expected restricted __be16
> > >> [usertype] value @@ got e] value @@
> > net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_ctl.c:3207:37: expected restricted __be16
> > [usertype] value
> > net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_ctl.c:3207:37: got int
> > net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_ctl.c:1313:27: sparse: dereference of noderef
> > expression
> >
> > vim +3207 net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_ctl.c
> >
> > > 3207 atomic_read(&dest->tun_port)) ||
>
> Should I change the type of tun_port from __be16 to u16?
> Looks like kbuild bugs a lot on this.
In struct ip_vs_dest you should use __be16 for tun_port and
__u16 for tun_type and avoid any atomic_t usage. To test it with sparse:
make C=2 CF="-D__CHECK_ENDIAN__" net/netfilter/ipvs/
And this is the only problem in v4 of the patch. Then may be
you should wait when net-next opens again before submitting v5.
Regards
--
Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
|