Re: [PATCH] [v2] arm64/io: add constant-argument check

From: Will Deacon
Date: Tue Jun 04 2024 - 11:56:08 EST


On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 05:37:11PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
>
> In some configurations __const_iowrite32_copy() does not get inlined
> and gcc runs into the BUILD_BUG():
>
> In file included from <command-line>:
> In function '__const_memcpy_toio_aligned32',
> inlined from '__const_iowrite32_copy' at arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h:203:3,
> inlined from '__const_iowrite32_copy' at arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h:199:20:
> include/linux/compiler_types.h:487:45: error: call to '__compiletime_assert_538' declared with attribute error: BUILD_BUG failed
> 487 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
> | ^
> include/linux/compiler_types.h:468:25: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert'
> 468 | prefix ## suffix(); \
> | ^~~~~~
> include/linux/compiler_types.h:487:9: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert'
> 487 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert'
> 39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> include/linux/build_bug.h:59:21: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG'
> 59 | #define BUILD_BUG() BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(1, "BUILD_BUG failed")
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h:193:17: note: in expansion of macro 'BUILD_BUG'
> 193 | BUILD_BUG();
> | ^~~~~~~~~
>
> Move the check for constant arguments into the inline function to ensure
> it is still constant if the compiler decides against inlining it.
>
> Fixes: ead79118dae6 ("arm64/io: Provide a WC friendly __iowriteXX_copy()")
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> v2:
> - fix both 32-bit and 64-bit copies
> - remove now-redundant macros
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h | 24 +++++++++---------------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

I think this is superseded by Mark's diff in reply to v1, right?

https://lore.kernel.org/r/ZlcODqVXTDh6n0h-@J2N7QTR9R3

If so, Mark, please can you post that as a proper patch so that we can
get this fixed?

Cheers,

Will