Hi Thomas,
On Mon, 2025-10-20 at 17:21 +0300, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
Hi Benjamin,
Sep 26, 2025 15:57:43 kernel test robot lkp@intel.com:
kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:
[auto build test WARNING on uml/next] [also build test WARNING on uml/fixes shuah-kselftest/next shuah- kselftest/fixes linus/master v6.17-rc7 next-20250925] [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note. And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]
url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Benjamin-Berg/tools-compiler-... base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/uml/linux%C2%A0next patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250924142059.527768-10-benjamin%40sipsolutions.n... patch subject: [PATCH v3 09/12] um: use nolibc for the --showconfig implementation :::::: branch date: 2 days ago :::::: commit date: 2 days ago config: um-randconfig-r111-20250926 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250926/202509261452.g5pe aXCc-lkp@intel.com/config) compiler: gcc-14 (Debian 14.2.0-19) 14.2.0 reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250926/202509261452.g5pe aXCc-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
Reported-by: kernel test robot lkp@intel.com Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/202509261452.g5peaXCc-lkp@intel.com/
sparse warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>) command-line: note: in included file (through tools/include/nolibc/nolibc.h, tools/include/nolibc/stddef.h, arch/um/include/shared/user.h, builtin):
tools/include/nolibc/sys.h:109:29: sparse: sparse: Using plain integer as NULL pointer
unistd.h:70:30: sparse: sparse: Using plain integer as NULL pointer tools/include/nolibc/unistd.h:70:33: sparse: sparse: Using plain integer as NULL pointer
Do you intend to work on your UML with nolibc patches this cycle? If not I would fix these sparse warnings in the nolibc tree and also apply your nolibc patches.
We are not in a hurry for the UML part and while it shouldn't be too much work, I obviously didn't get around to it in the last week.
So, feel free to pull the patches in via your tree. Then I'll submit the UML part again in the next cycle.
Benjamin