Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs updates for 6.11

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi David,

On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 1:25 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 8:12 PM David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > please pull the changes described below. The hilights are new logic
> > behind background block group reclaim, automatic removal of qgroup
> > after removing a subvolume and new 'rescue=' mount options. The rest is
> > optimizations, cleanups and refactoring.
> >
> > There's a merge conflict caused by the latency fixes from last week in
> > extent_map.c:btrfs_scan_inode(), related commits 4e660ca3a98d931809734
> > and b3ebb9b7e92a928344a. Resolved in branch for-6.11-merged and that's
> > been in linux-next for a few days.
>
> FTR, this is broken on 32-bit (doesn't build, good ;-) and on big-endian
> (compiler warnings, no idea how it behaves :-(, so you better don't
> trust your data to it in the latter case...

I cannot find any other report of this, and don't know yet where it
was introduced, but the bots started reporting this last May:

    3    fs/btrfs/inode.c:5711:5: warning: ‘location.type’ may be used
uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
    3    fs/btrfs/inode.c:5640:9: warning: ‘location.objectid’ may be
used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]

https://lore.kernel.org/all/6655b55f.170a0220.406f9.2e0e@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/

and I'm seeing failures in e.g. my m68k allmodconfig builds with
gcc 9.5 due to CONFIG_WERROR=y.

I suspect the big-endian accessors in fs/btrfs/accessors.h lack some
initializations?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds