On 07.02.2024 02:08, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 26.01.2024 11:05, Federico Serafini wrote:
>>> @@ -208,7 +205,7 @@ do {
>>> \
>>> case 8:
>>> \
>>> put_unsafe_asm(x, ptr, grd, retval, "q", "", "ir", errret);
>>> \
>>> break;
>>> \
>>> - default: __put_user_bad();
>>> \
>>> + default: STATIC_ASSERT_UNREACHABLE();
>>> \
>>> }
>>> \
>>> clac();
>>> \
>>> } while ( false )
>>> @@ -227,7 +224,7 @@ do {
>>> \
>>> case 2: get_unsafe_asm(x, ptr, grd, retval, "w", "=r", errret); break;
>>> \
>>> case 4: get_unsafe_asm(x, ptr, grd, retval, "k", "=r", errret); break;
>>> \
>>> case 8: get_unsafe_asm(x, ptr, grd, retval, "", "=r", errret); break;
>>> \
>>> - default: __get_user_bad();
>>> \
>>> + default: STATIC_ASSERT_UNREACHABLE();
>>> \
>>> }
>>> \
>>> clac();
>>> \
>>> } while ( false )
>>
>> Related to my remark on patch 1 - how is one to know the macro this was
>> invoked from, when seeing the resulting diagnostic?
>
> I am not sure what do you mean here... we do get an error like the
> following (I added a STATIC_ASSERT_UNREACHABLE for case 4):
>
> ./arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h:262: Error: static assertion failed:
> unreachable
Right - and how do I know what _user_ of the macro actually triggered
it? ISTR suggesting to use one or more of __FILE__ / __LINE__ /
__FUNCTION__ here, for that specific purpose ...
Jan
