From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752157AbaESWiW (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 May 2014 18:38:22 -0400 Received: from g4t3427.houston.hp.com ([15.201.208.55]:26523 "EHLO g4t3427.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751707AbaESWiU (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 May 2014 18:38:20 -0400 Message-ID: <1400539098.6399.6.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> Subject: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the akpm tree From: Davidlohr Bueso To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tim Chen Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 15:38:18 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20140520073634.40179424@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20140519181314.1b92c548@canb.auug.org.au> <1400512396.2560.9.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> <20140520073634.40179424@canb.auug.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.4 (3.6.4-3.fc18) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 07:36 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 19 May 2014 08:13:16 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2014-05-19 at 18:13 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > > > After merging the akpm tree, today's linux-next build (arm > > > multi_v7_defconfig) produced these warnings: > > > > > > > > > ipc/ipcns_notifier.c:22:8: warning: excess elements in struct initializer [enabled by default] > > > ipc/ipcns_notifier.c:22:8: warning: (near initialization for 'ipcns_chain.rwsem') [enabled by default] > > > ipc/ipcns_notifier.c:22:8: warning: excess elements in struct initializer [enabled by default] > > > ipc/ipcns_notifier.c:22:8: warning: (near initialization for 'ipcns_chain.rwsem') [enabled by default] > > > > > > and many more in other files ... > > > > Hmm are all the warning the same? Is this just on arm? have you seen it > > in other archs? (Could you please send me the .config) > > The warnings were all the same, I saw it only on arm (since that was > what I built) and I mentioned the config above. > > > > Presumably a result of commit fe2038c57c03 ("rwsem: Support optimistic > > > spinning"). > > > > If CONFIG_SMP, we add two new fields to the rwsem structure > > (include/linux/rwsem.h) and likewise we update the > > __RWSEM_INITIALIZER(name) macro. Afaict the only way to trigger > > something like that is to be using the spinlock variant > > (rwsem-spinlock.h). > > Actually quite a few architectures do set > CONFIG_RWSEM_GENERIC_SPINLOCK, and so wouldn't it make more sense to > actually directly test that? Both are equivalent, I have no preference. I've sent a formal fix to the -tip folks, I guess I'll let them choose. Thanks, Davidlohr