Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1572796 > unrolled thread

[PATCH 1/4] selftests, x86, protection_keys: fix unused variable compile warnings

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  [PATCH 1/4] selftests, x86, protection_keys: fix unused variable compile warnings Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-02-03 00:30 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 1/4] selftests, x86, protection_keys: fix unused variable  compile warnings Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> - 2017-02-03 00:40 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 1/4] selftests, x86, protection_keys: fix unused variable  compile warnings Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> - 2017-02-03 00:50 +0100
        Re: [PATCH 1/4] selftests, x86, protection_keys: fix unused variable  compile warnings Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-02-03 07:50 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 1/4] selftests, x86, protection_keys: fix unused variable  compile warnings Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-02-03 00:50 +0100

#1572796 — [PATCH 1/4] selftests, x86, protection_keys: fix unused variable compile warnings

From: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com>

Fix unused variable compile warnings in protection_keys.c

Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
---

 b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/protection_keys.c |    5 -----
 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)

diff -puN tools/testing/selftests/x86/protection_keys.c~selftests-x86-protection-keys-fix-unused-variable-compile-warnings tools/testing/selftests/x86/protection_keys.c
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/protection_keys.c~selftests-x86-protection-keys-fix-unused-variable-compile-warnings	2017-02-02 15:27:12.898110827 -0800
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/protection_keys.c	2017-02-02 15:27:12.901110962 -0800
@@ -812,8 +812,6 @@ void setup_hugetlbfs(void)
 {
 	int err;
 	int fd;
-	int validated_nr_pages;
-	int i;
 	char buf[] = "123";
 
 	if (geteuid() != 0) {
@@ -1133,7 +1131,6 @@ void test_pkey_syscalls_on_non_allocated
 void test_pkey_syscalls_bad_args(int *ptr, u16 pkey)
 {
 	int err;
-	int bad_flag = (PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS | PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE) + 1;
 	int bad_pkey = NR_PKEYS+99;
 
 	/* not enforced when pkey_get() is not a syscall
@@ -1149,8 +1146,6 @@ void test_pkey_syscalls_bad_args(int *pt
 /* Assumes that all pkeys other than 'pkey' are unallocated */
 void test_pkey_alloc_exhaust(int *ptr, u16 pkey)
 {
-	unsigned long flags;
-	unsigned long init_val;
 	int err;
 	int allocated_pkeys[NR_PKEYS] = {0};
 	int nr_allocated_pkeys = 0;
_

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1572808 — Re: [PATCH 1/4] selftests, x86, protection_keys: fix unused variable compile warnings

On 02/02/2017 04:28 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> From: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com>
> 
> Fix unused variable compile warnings in protection_keys.c
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>

Hi Dave,

This patches is already in linux-kselftest next for 4.11

Is there a reason why you chose to resend these.

-- Shuah

> ---
> 
>  b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/protection_keys.c |    5 -----
>  1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff -puN tools/testing/selftests/x86/protection_keys.c~selftests-x86-protection-keys-fix-unused-variable-compile-warnings tools/testing/selftests/x86/protection_keys.c
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/protection_keys.c~selftests-x86-protection-keys-fix-unused-variable-compile-warnings	2017-02-02 15:27:12.898110827 -0800
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/protection_keys.c	2017-02-02 15:27:12.901110962 -0800
> @@ -812,8 +812,6 @@ void setup_hugetlbfs(void)
>  {
>  	int err;
>  	int fd;
> -	int validated_nr_pages;
> -	int i;
>  	char buf[] = "123";
>  
>  	if (geteuid() != 0) {
> @@ -1133,7 +1131,6 @@ void test_pkey_syscalls_on_non_allocated
>  void test_pkey_syscalls_bad_args(int *ptr, u16 pkey)
>  {
>  	int err;
> -	int bad_flag = (PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS | PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE) + 1;
>  	int bad_pkey = NR_PKEYS+99;
>  
>  	/* not enforced when pkey_get() is not a syscall
> @@ -1149,8 +1146,6 @@ void test_pkey_syscalls_bad_args(int *pt
>  /* Assumes that all pkeys other than 'pkey' are unallocated */
>  void test_pkey_alloc_exhaust(int *ptr, u16 pkey)
>  {
> -	unsigned long flags;
> -	unsigned long init_val;
>  	int err;
>  	int allocated_pkeys[NR_PKEYS] = {0};
>  	int nr_allocated_pkeys = 0;
> _
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1572812 — Re: [PATCH 1/4] selftests, x86, protection_keys: fix unused variable compile warnings

On 02/02/2017 04:45 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 02/02/2017 03:36 PM, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> This patches is already in linux-kselftest next for 4.11
>>
>> Is there a reason why you chose to resend these.
> 
> Oh, my apologies!  I didn't realize it had been picked up elsewhere.
> Ingo had mentioned a few times in the last few days that he'd noticed
> the warnings.
> 
> So, x86 maintainers, do we want these to go through the kselftest tree
> or the x86 tree?
> 

I usually let many of the new tests that depend on new features go through
x86 tree. Patches that fix problems that are already in kselftest, I send
them up in via kselftest.

I noticed these when very early on when 4.10-rc1 came out and send the patches
out. SO they have been in linux-kselftest next for a while now.

thanks,
-- Shuah

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1572906 — Re: [PATCH 1/4] selftests, x86, protection_keys: fix unused variable compile warnings

* Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote:

> On 02/02/2017 04:45 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 02/02/2017 03:36 PM, Shuah Khan wrote:
> >> This patches is already in linux-kselftest next for 4.11
> >>
> >> Is there a reason why you chose to resend these.
> > 
> > Oh, my apologies!  I didn't realize it had been picked up elsewhere.
> > Ingo had mentioned a few times in the last few days that he'd noticed
> > the warnings.
> > 
> > So, x86 maintainers, do we want these to go through the kselftest tree
> > or the x86 tree?
> > 
> 
> I usually let many of the new tests that depend on new features go through
> x86 tree. Patches that fix problems that are already in kselftest, I send
> them up in via kselftest.
> 
> I noticed these when very early on when 4.10-rc1 came out and send the patches
> out. SO they have been in linux-kselftest next for a while now.

That's OK, but please Cc: me (or at least lkml) next time around.

Also, these should have been sent to Linus as fixes once the warnings were 
noticed, not queued up for v4.11 - but it's probably too late for that.

Are you going to pick up the other two fixes as well? They look good to me:

Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

Thanks,

	Ingo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1572813 — Re: [PATCH 1/4] selftests, x86, protection_keys: fix unused variable compile warnings

On 02/02/2017 03:36 PM, Shuah Khan wrote:
> This patches is already in linux-kselftest next for 4.11
> 
> Is there a reason why you chose to resend these.

Oh, my apologies!  I didn't realize it had been picked up elsewhere.
Ingo had mentioned a few times in the last few days that he'd noticed
the warnings.

So, x86 maintainers, do we want these to go through the kselftest tree
or the x86 tree?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web