Hi Marc,

On 7/10/20 11:31 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:

On Wed, 08 Jul 2020 05:57:24 +0100,
kernel test robot <l...@intel.com> wrote:

[1  <text/plain; us-ascii (7bit)>]
Hi Alexandre,

I love your patch! Perhaps something to improve:

[auto build test WARNING on stm32/stm32-next]
[also build test WARNING on soc/for-next v5.8-rc4 next-20200707]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use  as documented in

base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/atorgue/stm32.git 
config: arm-randconfig-s031-20200707 (attached as .config)
compiler: arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc (GCC) 9.3.0
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O 
         chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross
         # apt-get install sparse
         # sparse version: v0.6.2-31-gabbfd661-dirty
         # save the attached .config to linux build tree
         COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=gcc-9.3.0 make.cross C=1 
CF='-fdiagnostic-prefix -D__CHECK_ENDIAN__' ARCH=arm

If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate
Reported-by: kernel test robot <l...@intel.com>

All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):

    In file included from include/linux/build_bug.h:5,
                     from include/linux/bits.h:23,
                     from include/linux/bitops.h:5,
                     from drivers/irqchip/irq-stm32-exti.c:8:
    drivers/irqchip/irq-stm32-exti.c: In function 'stm32_exti_h_domain_alloc':
    drivers/irqchip/irq-stm32-exti.c:683:23: warning: comparison of unsigned 
expression >= 0 is always true [-Wtype-limits]
      683 |  if (desc->irq_parent >= 0) {
          |                       ^~
    include/linux/compiler.h:58:52: note: in definition of macro 
       58 | #define __trace_if_var(cond) (__builtin_constant_p(cond) ? (cond) : 
          |                                                    ^~~~
drivers/irqchip/irq-stm32-exti.c:683:2: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
      683 |  if (desc->irq_parent >= 0) {

Do you plan to address this? Looks like an actual bug to me.

I'll fix it in v2, I was just waiting for other comments before sending a v2. Do you prefer I send a v2 with this fix, and you'll do your review on this v2 ?



Reply via email to