Re: linux-next: Tree for Dec 6 (objtool, lots in btrfs)

From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Dec 6 (objtool, lots in btrfs)
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 11:03:05 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200117170305.qhwub4mf33vuw2y6@treble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200117165019.GM3929@twin.jikos.cz>

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 05:50:19PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 09:28:05AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 08:46:22PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 04:29:54PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> > > > Separating the definitions by #ifdef looks ok, I'd rather do separate
> > > > definitions of ASSERT too, to avoid the ternary operator. I'll send the
> > > > patch.
> > > 
> > > Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: separate definition of assertion failure handlers
> > > 
> > > There's a report where objtool detects unreachable instructions, eg.:
> > > 
> > >   fs/btrfs/ctree.o: warning: objtool: btrfs_search_slot()+0x2d4: unreachable instruction
> > > 
> > > This seems to be a false positive due to compiler version. The cause is
> > > in the ASSERT macro implementation that does the conditional check as
> > > IS_DEFINED(CONFIG_BTRFS_ASSERT) and not an #ifdef.
> > > 
> > > To avoid that, use the ifdefs directly.
> > > 
> > > CC: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
> > > Reported-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
> > > ---
> > >  fs/btrfs/ctree.h | 20 ++++++++++++--------
> > >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > 
> > This looks quite similar to my patch, would you mind giving me
> > attribution?
> 
> So Co-developed-by: or "based on patch from Josh", or something else?

Co-developed-by would be fine, thanks.

> > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
> > > index 569931dd0ce5..f90b82050d2d 100644
> > > --- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
> > > +++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
> > > @@ -3157,17 +3157,21 @@ do {								\
> > >  	rcu_read_unlock();					\
> > >  } while (0)
> > >  
> > > -__cold
> > > -static inline void assfail(const char *expr, const char *file, int line)
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_BTRFS_ASSERT
> > > +__cold __noreturn
> > > +static inline void assertfail(const char *expr, const char *file, int line)
> > >  {
> > > -	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BTRFS_ASSERT)) {
> > > -		pr_err("assertion failed: %s, in %s:%d\n", expr, file, line);
> > > -		BUG();
> > > -	}
> > > +	pr_err("assertion failed: %s, in %s:%d\n", expr, file, line);
> > > +	BUG();
> > 
> > assertfail() is definitely better than "assfail", but shouldn't you
> > update the callers so it doesn't break the build?
> 
> I don't understand what you mean, the helper is not called directly (and
> build does not fail with or without CONFIG_BTRFS_ASSERT), but always as
> ASSERT, so I don't see what needs to be updated.

Oops, you're right, I misread the patch.

-- 
Josh