| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jejb/scsi
Pull SCSI fixes from James Bottomley:
"Seven fixes: three in target, one on a sg error leg, two in qla2xxx
fixing warnings introduced in the last merge window and updating
MAINTAINERS and one in hisi_sas fixing a problem introduced by libata"
* tag 'scsi-fixes' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jejb/scsi:
scsi: sg: add sg_remove_request in sg_common_write
scsi: target: tcmu: reset_ring should reset TCMU_DEV_BIT_BROKEN
scsi: target: fix PR IN / READ FULL STATUS for FC
scsi: target: Write NULL to *port_nexus_ptr if no ISID
scsi: MAINTAINERS: Update qla2xxx FC-SCSI driver maintainer
scsi: qla2xxx: Fix regression warnings
scsi: hisi_sas: Fix build error without SATA_HOST
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/groeck/linux-staging
Pull hwmon fixes from Guenter Roeck:
- Fix up chip IDs (isl68137)
- error handling for invalid temperatures and use true module name
(drivetemp)
- Fix static symbol warnings (k10temp)
- Use valid hwmon device name (jc42)
* tag 'hwmon-for-v5.7-rc2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/groeck/linux-staging:
hwmon: (jc42) Fix name to have no illegal characters
hwmon: (k10temp) make some symbols static
hwmon: (drivetemp) Return -ENODATA for invalid temperatures
hwmon: (drivetemp) Use drivetemp's true module name in Kconfig section
hwmon: (pmbus/isl68137) Fix up chip IDs
|
|
Pull xfs fixes from Darrick Wong:
"The three commits here fix some livelocks and other clashes with
fsfreeze, a potential corruption problem, and a minor race between
processes freeing and allocating space when the filesystem is near
ENOSPC.
Summary:
- Fix a partially uninitialized variable.
- Teach the background gc threads to apply for fsfreeze protection.
- Fix some scaling problems when multiple threads try to flush the
filesystem when we're about to hit ENOSPC"
* tag 'xfs-5.7-fixes-3' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfs-linux:
xfs: move inode flush to the sync workqueue
xfs: fix partially uninitialized structure in xfs_reflink_remap_extent
xfs: acquire superblock freeze protection on eofblocks scans
|
|
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brauner/linux
Pull thread fixes from Christian Brauner:
"A few fixes and minor improvements:
- Correctly validate the cgroup file descriptor when clone3() is used
with CLONE_INTO_CGROUP.
- Check that a new enough version of struct clone_args is passed
which supports the cgroup file descriptor argument when
CLONE_INTO_CGROUP is set in the flags argument.
- Catch nonsensical struct clone_args layouts at build time.
- Catch extensions of struct clone_args without updating the uapi
visible size definitions at build time.
- Check whether the signal is valid early in kill_pid_usb_asyncio()
before doing further work.
- Replace open-coded rcu_read_lock()+kill_pid_info()+rcu_read_unlock()
sequence in kill_something_info() with kill_proc_info() which is a
dedicated helper to do just that"
* tag 'for-linus-2020-04-18' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brauner/linux:
clone3: add build-time CLONE_ARGS_SIZE_VER* validity checks
clone3: add a check for the user struct size if CLONE_INTO_CGROUP is set
clone3: fix cgroup argument sanity check
signal: use kill_proc_info instead of kill_pid_info in kill_something_info
signal: check sig before setting info in kill_pid_usb_asyncio
|
|
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wsa/linux
Pull i2c fixes from Wolfram Sang:
"Some driver bugfixes and an old API removal now that all users are
gone"
* 'i2c/for-current' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wsa/linux:
i2c: tegra: Synchronize DMA before termination
i2c: tegra: Better handle case where CPU0 is busy for a long time
i2c: remove i2c_new_probed_device API
i2c: altera: use proper variable to hold errno
i2c: designware: platdrv: Remove DPM_FLAG_SMART_SUSPEND flag on BYT and CHT
|
|
Pull drm fixes from Dave Airlie:
"Quiet enough for rc2, mostly amdgpu fixes, a couple of i915 fixes, and
one nouveau module firmware fix:
i915:
- Fix guest page access by using the brand new VFIO dma r/w interface (Yan)
- Fix for i915 perf read buffers (Ashutosh)
amdgpu:
- gfx10 fix
- SMU7 overclocking fix
- RAS fix
- GPU reset fix
- Fix a regression in a previous suspend/resume fix
- Add a gfxoff quirk
nouveau:
- fix missing MODULE_FIRMWARE"
* tag 'drm-fixes-2020-04-18' of git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm:
drm/nouveau/sec2/gv100-: add missing MODULE_FIRMWARE()
drm/amdgpu/gfx9: add gfxoff quirk
drm/amdgpu: fix the hw hang during perform system reboot and reset
drm/i915/gvt: switch to user vfio_group_pin/upin_pages
drm/i915/gvt: subsitute kvm_read/write_guest with vfio_dma_rw
drm/i915/gvt: hold reference of VFIO group during opening of vgpu
drm/i915/perf: Do not clear pollin for small user read buffers
drm/amdgpu: fix wrong vram lost counter increment V2
drm/amd/powerplay: unload mp1 for Arcturus RAS baco reset
drm/amd/powerplay: force the trim of the mclk dpm_levels if OD is enabled
Revert "drm/amdgpu: change SH MEM alignment mode for gfx10"
|
|
The jc42 driver passes I2C client's name as hwmon device name. In case
of device tree probed devices this ends up being part of the compatible
string, "jc-42.4-temp". This name contains hyphens and the hwmon core
doesn't like this:
jc42 2-0018: hwmon: 'jc-42.4-temp' is not a valid name attribute, please fix
This changes the name to "jc42" which doesn't have any illegal
characters.
Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200417092853.31206-1-s.hauer@pengutronix.de
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
|
|
Tremont CPUs support IA32_CORE_CAPABILITIES bits to indicate whether
specific SKUs have support for split lock detection.
Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200416205754.21177-4-tony.luck@intel.com
|
|
The Intel Software Developers' Manual erroneously listed bit 5 of the
IA32_CORE_CAPABILITIES register as an architectural feature. It is not.
Features enumerated by IA32_CORE_CAPABILITIES are model specific and
implementation details may vary in different cpu models. Thus it is only
safe to trust features after checking the CPU model.
Icelake client and server models are known to implement the split lock
detect feature even though they don't enumerate IA32_CORE_CAPABILITIES
[ tglx: Use switch() for readability and massage comments ]
Fixes: 6650cdd9a8cc ("x86/split_lock: Enable split lock detection by kernel")
Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200416205754.21177-3-tony.luck@intel.com
|
|
DMA_MASK bit values are different for different generations.
This will become more difficult to manage over time with the open
coded usage of different versions of the device.
Fix by:
disallow setting of dma mask in AGP path (< GEN(5) for i915,
add dma_mask_size to the device info configuration,
updating open code call sequence to the latest interface,
refactoring into a common function for setting the dma segment
and mask info
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Michael J. Ruhl <michael.j.ruhl@intel.com>
cc: Brian Welty <brian.welty@intel.com>
cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200417195107.68732-1-michael.j.ruhl@intel.com
|
|
The variable test_result is being initialized with a value that is
never read and it is being updated later with a new value. The
initialization is redundant and can be removed.
Addresses-Coverity: ("Unused value")
Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200417160829.112776-1-colin.king@canonical.com
|
|
Gen11 onwards PG3 contains functions for pipe B,
external displays, and VGA. Add missing ICL_DISP_PW_3
for ehl_power_wells.
Cc: Animesh Manna <animesh.manna@intel.com>
Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/1737
Signed-off-by: Anshuman Gupta <anshuman.gupta@intel.com>
Acked-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200417172835.15461-1-anshuman.gupta@intel.com
|
|
Right now dp.regs.dp_tp_ctl/status are only set during the encoder
pre_enable() hook, what is causing all reads and writes to those
registers to go to offset 0x0 before pre_enable() is executed.
So if i915 takes the BIOS state and don't do a modeset any following
link retraing will fail.
In the case that i915 needs to do a modeset, the DDI disable sequence
will write to a wrong register not disabling DP 'Transport Enable' in
DP_TP_CTL, making a HDMI modeset in the same port/transcoder to
not light up the monitor.
So here for GENs older than 12, that have those registers fixed at
port offset range it is loading at encoder/port init while for GEN12
it will keep setting it at encoder pre_enable() and during HW state
readout.
Fixes: 4444df6e205b ("drm/i915/tgl: move DP_TP_* to transcoder")
Cc: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
Cc: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200414230442.262092-1-jose.souza@intel.com
|
|
This is a expected timeout of static TC ports not conneceted, so
not throwing warnings that would taint CI.
v3:
- moved checks to tc_phy_aux_timeout_expected()
v4:
- moved and add comments to tc_phy_aux_timeout_expected()
v5:
- only checking tc_legacy_port for TC ports
Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200414194956.164323-8-jose.souza@intel.com
|
|
As described in "drm/i915/tc/icl: Implement TC cold sequences" users
of TC functions should held aux power well during access to avoid
read garbage due HW in TC cold state.
v3:
- renamed is_tc_cold_blocked() to assert_tc_cold_blocked()
- restored the removed 0xffffffff checks
Reviewed-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Tested-by: You-Sheng Yang <vicamo.yang@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200414194956.164323-7-jose.souza@intel.com
|
|
TC ports can enter in TCCOLD to save power and is required to request
to PCODE to exit this state before use or read to TC registers.
For TGL there is a new MBOX command to do that with a parameter to ask
PCODE to exit and block TCCOLD entry or unblock TCCOLD entry.
So adding a new power domain to reuse the refcount and only allow
TC cold when all TC ports are not in use.
v2:
- fixed missing case in intel_display_power_domain_str()
- moved tgl_tc_cold_request to intel_display_power.c
- renamed TGL_TC_COLD_OFF to TGL_TC_COLD_OFF_POWER_DOMAINS
- added all TC and TBT aux power domains to
TGL_TC_COLD_OFF_POWER_DOMAINS
v3:
- added one msec sleep when PCODE returns -EAGAIN
- added timeout of 5msec to not loop forever if
sandybridge_pcode_write_timeout() keeps returning -EAGAIN
v4:
- Made failure to block or unblock TC cold a error
- removed 5msec timeout, instead giving PCODE 1msec by up 3 times to
recover from the internal error
v5:
- only sleeping 1msec when ret is -EAGAIN
BSpec: 49294
Cc: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Cc: Cooper Chiou <cooper.chiou@intel.com>
Cc: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@canonical.com>
Reviewed-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200414194956.164323-6-jose.souza@intel.com
|
|
As part of ICL TC cold exit sequences we need to request aux power
well before lock the access to TC ports, so skiping the
intel_tc_port_ref_held() check for TC legacy ports.
Reviewed-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Tested-by: You-Sheng Yang <vicamo.yang@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200414194956.164323-5-jose.souza@intel.com
|
|
This is required for legacy/static TC ports as IOM is not aware of
the connection and will not trigger the TC cold exit.
Just request PCODE to exit TCCOLD is not enough as it could enter
again before driver makes use of the port, to prevent it BSpec states
that aux powerwell should be held.
So here embedding the TC cold exit sequence into ICL aux enable,
it will enable aux and then request TC cold to exit.
The TC cold block(exit and aux hold) and unblock was added to some
exported TC functions for the others and to access PHY registers,
callers should enable and keep aux powerwell enabled during access.
Also adding TC cold check and warnig in tc_port_load_fia_params() as
at this point of the driver initialization we can't request power
wells, if we get this warning we will need to figure out how to handle
it.
v2:
- moved ICL TC cold exit function to intel_display_power
- using dig_port->tc_legacy_port to only execute sequences for legacy
ports, hopefully VBTs will have this right
- fixed check to call _hsw_power_well_continue_enable()
- calling _hsw_power_well_continue_enable() unconditionally in
icl_tc_phy_aux_power_well_enable(), if needed we will surpress timeout
warnings of TC legacy ports
- only blocking TC cold around fia access
v3:
- added timeout of 5msec to not loop forever if
sandybridge_pcode_write_timeout() keeps returning -EAGAIN
returning -EAGAIN in in icl_tc_cold_exit()
- removed leftover tc_cold_wakeref
- added one msec sleep when PCODE returns -EAGAIN
v4:
- removed 5msec timeout, instead giving 1msec to whoever is using
PCODE to finish it up to 3 times
- added a comment about turn TC cold exit failure as a error in future
BSpec: 21750
Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/1296
Cc: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Cc: Cooper Chiou <cooper.chiou@intel.com>
Cc: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@canonical.com>
Reviewed-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200414194956.164323-4-jose.souza@intel.com
|
|
This is a preparation for ICL TC cold exit sequences.
v2:
- renamed new functions to hsw_power_well_enable_prepare()/complete()
Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Tested-by: You-Sheng Yang <vicamo.yang@canonical.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200414194956.164323-3-jose.souza@intel.com
|
|
This is a similar function to intel_aux_power_domain() but it do not
care about TBT ports, this will be needed by ICL TC sequences.
v2:
- renamed to intel_legacy_aux_to_power_domain()
Cc: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Cc: Cooper Chiou <cooper.chiou@intel.com>
Cc: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@canonical.com>
Reviewed-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Tested-by: You-Sheng Yang <vicamo.yang@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200414194956.164323-2-jose.souza@intel.com
|
|
Moving the code to return the digital port of the aux channel also
removing the intel_phy_is_tc() to make it generic.
digital_port will be needed in icl_tc_phy_aux_power_well_enable()
so adding it as a parameter to icl_tc_port_assert_ref_held().
While at at removing the duplicated call to icl_tc_phy_aux_ch() in
icl_tc_port_assert_ref_held().
v2:
- fixed build when DRM_I915_DEBUG_RUNTIME_PM is not set
- moved to before hsw_wait_for_power_well_enable() as it will be
needed by hsw_wait_for_power_well_enable() in a future patch
v4:
- fixed action of if (!dig_port), continue instead of return
Cc: You-Sheng Yang <vicamo@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Tested-by: You-Sheng Yang <vicamo.yang@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200414194956.164323-1-jose.souza@intel.com
|
|
The intel_display_power_put_async() used in TC cold sequences made
easy to hit the missing deinitialization of driver in case of load
failure as seen in the stack trace bellow.
intel_modeset_driver_remove_noirq() had to be removed from
i915_driver_modeset_remove_noirq() as those are different
initialialition steps with IRQ and GEM initialization in between then.
[drm:__intel_engine_init_ctx_wa [i915]] Initialized 3 context workarounds on rcs'0
[drm:__i915_inject_probe_error [i915]] Injecting failure -19 at checkpoint 36 [__uc_init:294]
[drm:i915_hdcp_component_unbind [i915]] I915 HDCP comp unbind
[drm:edp_panel_vdd_off_sync [i915]] Turning [ENCODER:275:DDI A] VDD off
[drm:edp_panel_vdd_off_sync [i915]] PP_STATUS: 0x00000000 PP_CONTROL: 0x00000060
[drm:intel_power_well_disable [i915]] disabling AUX A
general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0x6b6b6b6b6b6b6b6b: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP NOPTI
CPU: 3 PID: 1142 Comm: kworker/u16:20 Tainted: G U 5.6.0-CI-Patchwork_17226+ #1
Hardware name: Intel Corporation Tiger Lake Client Platform/TigerLake U DDR4 SODIMM RVP, BIOS TGLSFWI1.R00.2457.A16.1912270059 12/27/2019
Workqueue: events_unbound intel_display_power_put_async_work [i915]
RIP: 0010:__intel_display_power_put_domain+0xa5/0x180 [i915]
Code: 48 85 c0 78 54 44 89 e1 41 bd 01 00 00 00 49 c7 c4 80 44 41 a0 49 d3 e5 eb 0d 48 83 eb 10 48 3b 9d 08 ad 00 00 78 32 48 8b 03 <4c> 85 68 10 74 ea 8b 53 08 85 d2 74 2d 83 ea 01 85 d2 89 53 08 75
RSP: 0018:ffffc9000061fdb0 EFLAGS: 00010206
RAX: 6b6b6b6b6b6b6b6b RBX: ffff8884948f5df0 RCX: 000000000000003d
RDX: 0000000080000001 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: 0000000000000000
RBP: ffff888479be0000 R08: ffff88849a180920 R09: 0000000000000000
R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffffffffa0414480
R13: 2000000000000000 R14: ffff888479beb320 R15: 2000000000000000
FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88849ff80000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
CR2: 00005634fa8ed670 CR3: 0000000005610004 CR4: 0000000000760ee0
PKRU: 55555554
Call Trace:
release_async_put_domains+0x9b/0x110 [i915]
intel_display_power_put_async_work+0x91/0xf0 [i915]
process_one_work+0x260/0x600
? worker_thread+0xc9/0x380
worker_thread+0x37/0x380
? process_one_work+0x600/0x600
kthread+0x119/0x130
? kthread_park+0x80/0x80
ret_from_fork+0x24/0x50
Modules linked in: i915(+) vgem snd_hda_codec_hdmi mei_hdcp x86_pkg_temp_thermal coretemp crct10dif_pclmul crc32_pclmul cdc_ether usbnet mii snd_intel_dspcfg ghash_clmulni_intel snd_hda_codec snd_hwdep snd_hda_core e1000e ptp mei_me snd_pcm pps_core mei intel_lpss_pci prime_numbers [last unloaded: i915]
---[ end trace b402d1b4060f8b97 ]---
BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/sched/completion.c:99
in_atomic(): 0, irqs_disabled(): 0, non_block: 0, pid: 1142, name: kworker/u16:20
INFO: lockdep is turned off.
Preemption disabled at:
[<0000000000000000>] 0x0
CPU: 3 PID: 1142 Comm: kworker/u16:20 Tainted: G UD 5.6.0-CI-Patchwork_17226+ #1
Hardware name: Intel Corporation Tiger Lake Client Platform/TigerLake U DDR4 SODIMM RVP, BIOS TGLSFWI1.R00.2457.A16.1912270059 12/27/2019
Workqueue: events_unbound intel_display_power_put_async_work [i915]
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0x71/0x9b
___might_sleep+0x178/0x260
wait_for_completion+0x37/0x1a0
virt_efi_query_variable_info+0x161/0x1b0
efi_query_variable_store+0xb3/0x1a0
? efivar_entry_set_safe+0x19c/0x220
efivar_entry_set_safe+0x19c/0x220
? efi_pstore_write+0x10b/0x150
? efi_pstore_write+0xa0/0x150
efi_pstore_write+0x10b/0x150
pstore_dump+0x123/0x340
kmsg_dump+0x87/0x1b0
oops_end+0x3e/0x90
do_general_protection+0x1c3/0x2f0
general_protection+0x2d/0x40
RIP: 0010:__intel_display_power_put_domain+0xa5/0x180 [i915]
Code: 48 85 c0 78 54 44 89 e1 41 bd 01 00 00 00 49 c7 c4 80 44 41 a0 49 d3 e5 eb 0d 48 83 eb 10 48 3b 9d 08 ad 00 00 78 32 48 8b 03 <4c> 85 68 10 74 ea 8b 53 08 85 d2 74 2d 83 ea 01 85 d2 89 53 08 75
RSP: 0018:ffffc9000061fdb0 EFLAGS: 00010206
RAX: 6b6b6b6b6b6b6b6b RBX: ffff8884948f5df0 RCX: 000000000000003d
RDX: 0000000080000001 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: 0000000000000000
RBP: ffff888479be0000 R08: ffff88849a180920 R09: 0000000000000000
R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffffffffa0414480
R13: 2000000000000000 R14: ffff888479beb320 R15: 2000000000000000
release_async_put_domains+0x9b/0x110 [i915]
intel_display_power_put_async_work+0x91/0xf0 [i915]
process_one_work+0x260/0x600
? worker_thread+0xc9/0x380
worker_thread+0x37/0x380
? process_one_work+0x600/0x600
kthread+0x119/0x130
? kthread_park+0x80/0x80
ret_from_fork+0x24/0x50
------------[ cut here ]------------
WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 1142 at kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h:293 rcu_note_context_switch+0x87/0x650
Modules linked in: i915(+) vgem snd_hda_codec_hdmi mei_hdcp x86_pkg_temp_thermal coretemp crct10dif_pclmul crc32_pclmul cdc_ether usbnet mii snd_intel_dspcfg ghash_clmulni_intel snd_hda_codec snd_hwdep snd_hda_core e1000e ptp mei_me snd_pcm pps_core mei intel_lpss_pci prime_numbers [last unloaded: i915]
v2:
- fixed handling in case of failure in drm_vblank_init()
- moved i915_gem_driver_remove() call to before
i915_driver_modeset_remove_noirq() this match initialization order too
v3:
- reverting call swap between i915_reset_error_state() and i915_gem_driver_remove()
call order
- improved label naming in i915_driver_modeset_probe_noirq()
Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/1647
Cc: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200416185841.125686-1-jose.souza@intel.com
|
