On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 11:22 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
6.6-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
From: Ryusuke Konishi konishi.ryusuke@gmail.com
[ Upstream commit 91d743a9c8299de1fc1b47428d8bb4c85face00f ]
Hi Greg,
I have twice raised the suspicion that this patch should not be eligible for stable backport because it is not a bugfix (it just fixes a false positive sparse warning). And you dropped it the first time [1][2].
[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAKFNMo=kyzbvfLrTv8JhuY=e7-fkjtpL3DvcQ1r+RUPPeC4S9... [2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAKFNMontZ54JxOyK0_xy8P_SfpE0swgq9wiPUErnZ-yrO7wOJ...
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 3:28 AM Greg KH greg@kroah.com wrote:
This commit fixes the sparse warning output by build "make C=1" with the sparse check, but does not fix any operational bugs.
Therefore, if fixing a harmless sparse warning does not meet the requirements for backporting to stable trees (I assume it does), please drop it as it is a false positive pickup. Sorry if the "Fixes:" tag is confusing.
The same goes for the same patch queued to other stable-trees.
Now dropped, thanks!
greg k-h
Perhaps due to the confusing Fixes tag, this patch appears to have been picked up again. Unless the criteria for its inclusion or exclusion have changed, I think this was selected by mistake. Please check.
Thanks, Ryusuke Konishi
Upon running sparse, "warning: dubious: x & !y" is output at an array index calculation within nilfs_load_super_block().
The calculation is not wrong, but to eliminate the sparse warning, replace it with an equivalent calculation.
Also, add a comment to make it easier to understand what the unintuitive array index calculation is doing and whether it's correct.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240430080019.4242-3-konishi.ryusuke@gmail.com Fixes: e339ad31f599 ("nilfs2: introduce secondary super block") Signed-off-by: Ryusuke Konishi konishi.ryusuke@gmail.com Cc: Bart Van Assche bvanassche@acm.org Cc: Jens Axboe axboe@kernel.dk Cc: kernel test robot lkp@intel.com Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton akpm@linux-foundation.org Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org
fs/nilfs2/the_nilfs.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/nilfs2/the_nilfs.c b/fs/nilfs2/the_nilfs.c index 71400496ed365..3e3c1d32da180 100644 --- a/fs/nilfs2/the_nilfs.c +++ b/fs/nilfs2/the_nilfs.c @@ -592,7 +592,7 @@ static int nilfs_load_super_block(struct the_nilfs *nilfs, struct nilfs_super_block **sbp = nilfs->ns_sbp; struct buffer_head **sbh = nilfs->ns_sbh; u64 sb2off, devsize = bdev_nr_bytes(nilfs->ns_bdev);
int valid[2], swp = 0;
int valid[2], swp = 0, older; if (devsize < NILFS_SEG_MIN_BLOCKS * NILFS_MIN_BLOCK_SIZE + 4096) { nilfs_err(sb, "device size too small");@@ -648,9 +648,25 @@ static int nilfs_load_super_block(struct the_nilfs *nilfs, if (swp) nilfs_swap_super_block(nilfs);
/** Calculate the array index of the older superblock data.* If one has been dropped, set index 0 pointing to the remaining one,* otherwise set index 1 pointing to the old one (including if both* are the same).** Divided case valid[0] valid[1] swp -> older* -------------------------------------------------------------* Both SBs are invalid 0 0 N/A (Error)* SB1 is invalid 0 1 1 0* SB2 is invalid 1 0 0 0* SB2 is newer 1 1 1 0* SB2 is older or the same 1 1 0 1*/older = valid[1] ^ swp;nilfs->ns_sbwcount = 0; nilfs->ns_sbwtime = le64_to_cpu(sbp[0]->s_wtime);
nilfs->ns_prot_seq = le64_to_cpu(sbp[valid[1] & !swp]->s_last_seq);
nilfs->ns_prot_seq = le64_to_cpu(sbp[older]->s_last_seq); *sbpp = sbp[0]; return 0;}
2.43.0