Hi SeongJae,
On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 11:45 AM SeongJae Park sj@kernel.org wrote:
Hi Yuanchu,
On Wed, 4 May 2022 18:29:08 +0000 Yuanchu Xie yuanchu@google.com wrote:
The test case added in commit db7a347b26fe ("mm/damon/dbgfs: use '__GFP_NOWARN' for user-specified size buffer allocation") intentionally writes and reads with a large count to cause allocation failure and check for kernel warnings. We suppress the compiler warnings for these calls as they work as intended.
Signed-off-by: Yuanchu Xie yuanchu@google.com
It would be a good practice to mention the changes from the previous version of this patch here[1].
[1] https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html#the-canonical-patch-...
Thank you, I missed this when trying to figure out how to add additional comments for a revision.
tools/testing/selftests/damon/huge_count_read_write.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/damon/huge_count_read_write.c b/tools/testing/selftests/damon/huge_count_read_write.c index ad7a6b4cf338..91bd80c75cd9 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/damon/huge_count_read_write.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/damon/huge_count_read_write.c @@ -2,6 +2,8 @@ /*
- Author: SeongJae Park sj@kernel.org
*/ +#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wstringop-overflow" +#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wstringop-overread"
I agree that this must be the cleaner way than v2. But, I get below warning after applying this:
$ sudo make -C tools/testing/selftests/damon run_tests make: Entering directory '/home/sjpark/linux/tools/testing/selftests/damon' gcc huge_count_read_write.c -o /home/sjpark/linux/tools/testing/selftests/damon/huge_count_read_write huge_count_read_write.c:6:32: warning: unknown option after ‘#pragma GCC diagnostic’ kind [-Wpragmas] 6 | #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wstringop-overread" | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~My gcc version is:
$ gcc --version gcc (Ubuntu 9.4.0-1ubuntu1~20.04.1) 9.4.0
I see, I'm running
$ gcc --version gcc (Debian 11.2.0-16+build1) 11.2.0
I believe this is a new warning for gcc-11 [1], and somewhat unfortunate that it results in a warning for gcc-9.4. I'm not sure what the preference is here. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-10.3.0/gcc/Warning-Options.html
Thanks, Yuanchu