From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CE95C33CB1 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 15:28:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F17242083E for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 15:28:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="YwAyJXBS" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729073AbgAQP2P (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:28:15 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.120]:42443 "EHLO us-smtp-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726942AbgAQP2O (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:28:14 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1579274893; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=vX7MenyazFNxz1gceqizoJgoTU64O71K2UNBQUf1hrg=; b=YwAyJXBShu/vkIxtW3zGORU4ZkZ4tcLt2G+xP3X6Clu22dymCCeuYiB9A4fTQsz4+ALW9j A18dVwDUsgtg9OnPGQxzfvg3X+lErVL2Wwin9wdPyUGqGq5pcrC/0ANJOe5PpEmRJb6u69 yLx8c7DhczJlip4gdfN4LTbaufskTKU= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-266-UlEsAOqpPBecNTmYEIaVFQ-1; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:28:09 -0500 X-MC-Unique: UlEsAOqpPBecNTmYEIaVFQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A0D1100551A; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 15:28:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from treble (ovpn-123-54.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.123.54]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1762484334; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 15:28:07 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 09:28:05 -0600 From: Josh Poimboeuf To: David Sterba Cc: Randy Dunlap , Stephen Rothwell , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Btrfs , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Dec 6 (objtool, lots in btrfs) Message-ID: <20200117152805.ncy3z34imzpchg7m@treble> References: <20191211134929.GL3929@twin.jikos.cz> <20191212184725.db3ost7rcopotr5u@treble> <20191213235054.6k2lcnwa63r26zwi@treble> <20191214054515.ougsr5ykhl3vvy57@treble> <20191217152954.GH3929@suse.cz> <20200110194622.GS3929@twin.jikos.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200110194622.GS3929@twin.jikos.cz> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org 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 > Reported-by: Randy Dunlap > Signed-off-by: David Sterba > --- > 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? > 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? -- Josh