Buiild error in i915/xe

[Guenter Roeck]

On 1/20/25 03:21, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025, David Laight <david.laight.linux at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 12:48:11 +0200
>> Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025, David Laight <david.laight.linux at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 14:58:48 -0800
>>>> Guenter Roeck <linux at roeck-us.net> wrote:
>>>>   
>>>>> On 1/18/25 14:11, David Laight wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 13:21:39 -0800
>>>>>> Linus Torvalds <torvalds at linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 at 09:49, Guenter Roeck <linux at roeck-us.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No idea why the compiler would know that the values are invalid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not that the compiler knows tat they are invalid, but I bet what
>>>>>>> happens is in scale() (and possibly other places that do similar
>>>>>>> checks), which does this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           WARN_ON(source_min > source_max);
>>>>>>>           ...
>>>>>>>           source_val = clamp(source_val, source_min, source_max);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and the compiler notices that the ordering comparison in the first
>>>>>>> WARN_ON() is the same as the one in clamp(), so it basically converts
>>>>>>> the logic to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           if (source_min > source_max) {
>>>>>>>                   WARN(..);
>>>>>>>                   /* Do the clamp() knowing that source_min > source_max */
>>>>>>>                   source_val = clamp(source_val, source_min, source_max);
>>>>>>>           } else {
>>>>>>>                   /* Do the clamp knowing that source_min <= source_max */
>>>>>>>                   source_val = clamp(source_val, source_min, source_max);
>>>>>>>           }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (obviously I dropped the other WARN_ON in the conversion, it wasn't
>>>>>>> relevant for this case).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And now that first clamp() case is done with source_min > source_max,
>>>>>>> and it triggers that build error because that's invalid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the condition is not statically true in the *source* code, but in
>>>>>>> the "I have moved code around to combine tests" case it now *is*
>>>>>>> statically true as far as the compiler is concerned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well spotted :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One option would be to move the WARN_ON() below the clamp() and
>>>>>> add an OPTIMISER_HIDE_VAR(source_max) between them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or do something more sensible than the WARN().
>>>>>> Perhaps return target_min on any such errors?
>>>>>>      
>>>>>
>>>>> This helps:
>>>>>
>>>>> -       WARN_ON(source_min > source_max);
>>>>> -       WARN_ON(target_min > target_max);
>>>>> -
>>>>>           /* defensive */
>>>>>           source_val = clamp(source_val, source_min, source_max);
>>>>>
>>>>> +       WARN_ON(source_min > source_max);
>>>>> +       WARN_ON(target_min > target_max);
>>>>
>>>> That is a 'quick fix' ...
>>>>
>>>> Much better would be to replace the WARN() with (say):
>>>> 	if (target_min >= target_max)
>>>> 		return target_min;
>>>> 	if (source_min >= source_max)
>>>> 		return target_min + (target_max - target_min)/2;
>>>> So that the return values are actually in range (in as much as one is defined).
>>>> Note that the >= cpmparisons also remove a divide by zero.
>>>
>>> I want the loud and early warnings for clear bugs instead of
>>> "gracefully" silencing the errors only to be found through debugging
>>> user reports.
>>
>> A user isn't going to notice a WARN() - not until you tell them to look for it.
>> In any case even if you output a message you really want to return a 'sane'
>> value, who knows what effect a very out of range value is going to have.
> 
> The point is, we'll catch the WARN in CI before it goes out to users.
> 

It isn't going to catch the divide by 0 error, and it obviously doesn't
catch the build problem on parisc with gcc 13.x because the CI isn't
testing it.

How about disabling DRM_XE on architectures where it isn't supported,
matching DRM_I915 ?

Thanks,
Guenter