From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E821C433ED for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 22:07:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E7BD61059 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 22:07:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231818AbhCaWGj (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Mar 2021 18:06:39 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:60286 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229787AbhCaWGS (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Mar 2021 18:06:18 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-x22d.google.com (mail-lj1-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22d]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B43DDC061574 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 15:06:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id 15so68763ljj.0 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 15:06:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6QLAC5kN/WTgkwkL/JFTyfACTaPGT2EBf3L5262ee+4=; b=ADTGFd4lk9p+Q+wx9GIWrS3fgJRyAxfL9keWhU1AajmwQ7JNHeSKUjj8seO3YINUdT MVoDfIP75V7pkXaEvdPSxKJD55YG+eurYiLsXz8688cGJmg4fLD08X0dLETnO+zlcIY5 Nsib1gSnvPeBnFv1H5zoO1DGqgcoyi3muxpG9bkVDDhREZkWZnkR2mqebP5KSv0ybqNn 1oaLNsOF+4ydbnJ5+BkIHP11tui3h03YPgBP1dwtBWNHNvx+wp4F4PzDxOHHNqtInvbZ tC7GGOlPEpRowAN1evP0wYWXCo1yqu7o8kQcrYibnqwX6TVcdXj7AD1+b+e8YUXnceK3 ls3Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6QLAC5kN/WTgkwkL/JFTyfACTaPGT2EBf3L5262ee+4=; b=QhsKTlf16lt4Mkw6y8aw788nk98JkinQaIpkNqpCaa4Kos7Is562Bl+0c7ek4hwsmI nQYRh6J4eAYSaYl3K5MM6ltcrETuQAQkeacvwBJQt3y+yRRQ7iyNYpjlqd7xIGA7EZrp twi56I365TqbSgKAA+5qeweyQbcLUdF4MWuoaGrmxmaNwF2YLzBNnCHs/z/9RbtFnQ5L rw6CWjOJRLuClfVILAdg148ZlruyVOygrVZLLcwTy7pjj1gjmcQNxPb+V+aGjYtR/2oR 9Pjwpq7SPyP+C2MBl14QrGFQ7NAfrOMCxDLfZcUHmFa37BGUt4ZLp8YTIoGS4x4EcxaD DfNA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530vliQR2gVMxUf8MIuJLSnkNmsXG5Kx3hMT2ijVhDOcepFTxEwD oiGdpNcHb9/95ryMrZ8u0aW4mp+OBHD879dcy5CxVQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyoZW5ZCpawMvEh8m06nfRQeoGo8aGODeEmAJXnZJmb8H0MPRbES64y2zB7W9P4SMx0Y1mqNcOQpk8Fd/JLhH8= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:3603:: with SMTP id d3mr3354196lja.495.1617228376110; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 15:06:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210330230249.709221-1-jiancai@google.com> <20210330232946.m5p7426macyjduzm@archlinux-ax161> <114a5697-9b5c-daf1-f0fc-dc190d4db74d@roeck-us.net> <20210331215802.r4rp6wynjqutdoup@archlinux-ax161> In-Reply-To: <20210331215802.r4rp6wynjqutdoup@archlinux-ax161> From: Nick Desaulniers Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 15:06:05 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: fix alignment mismatch. To: Nathan Chancellor , Jens Axboe Cc: Jian Cai , Guenter Roeck , Christopher Di Bella , Manoj Gupta , Luis Lozano , clang-built-linux , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 2:58 PM Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 02:27:03PM -0700, Jian Cai wrote: > > > > I just realized you already proposed solutions for skipping the check > > in https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20210310225240.4epj2mdmzt4vurr3@archlinux-ax161/#t. > > Do you have any plans to send them for review? > > I was hoping to gather some feedback on which option would be preferred > by Jens and the other ClangBuiltLinux folks before I sent them along. I > can send the first just to see what kind of feedback I can gather. Either approach is fine by me. The smaller might be easier to get accepted into stable. The larger approach will probably become more useful in the future (having the diag infra work properly with clang). I think the ball is kind of in Jens' court to decide. Would doing both be appropriate, Jens? Have the smaller patch tagged for stable disabling it for the whole file, then another commit on top not tagged for stable that adds the diag infra, and a third on top replacing the file level warning disablement with local diags to isolate this down to one case? It's a fair but small amount of churn IMO; but if Jens is not opposed it seems fine? -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers