Re: [PATCH] x86/mce: Fix build warning after MSR-interface switch
Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Fri, 17 Jul 2026 12:25:01 +0200
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-edac,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
* Jürgen Groà <[email protected]> wrote: > On 17.07.26 11:28, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Juergen Gross <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The recent switch to 64-bit MSR interfaces introduced a build warning. > > > > > > Fix it. > > > > > > Fixes: cff219368bd0 ("x86/mce: Stop using 32-bit MSR interfaces") > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <[email protected]> > > > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/[email protected]/ > > > Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > Said patch is in tip only right now, so this patch could either be added > > > on top or be folded into the original patch. > > > --- > > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/p5.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/p5.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/p5.c > > > index eb99f384d747..3c2b6cc918b1 100644 > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/p5.c > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/p5.c > > > @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ noinstr void pentium_machine_check(struct pt_regs *regs) > > > /* Set up machine check reporting for processors with Intel style MCE: */ > > > void intel_p5_mcheck_init(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c) > > > { > > > - u64 q; > > > + u64 __maybe_unused q; > > > > Could we just fix the API to always assign 'q', instead of this > > ugly & vague annotation? > > q is always assigned. I believe the problem is that it is never read. Indeed. > OTOH this problem can be fixed easily after patch 31 of this series. I can send > a V2 of patch 32 to just drop the assignment to q. This will be possible as > rdmsrq() will be a function then, and not a macro requiring a variable being > passed as parameter. That's fine with me, as long as the build failure is only for this i386 randconfig. If a new warning is generated for any of the more prominent configs we'll have to make it go away for the interim tree. (Because it's still not 100% clear whether we'll be able to do patch 31 in this cycle.) Thanks, Ingo