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=-6.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS 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 CC17FC433B4 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 18:12:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9102561132 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 18:12:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232735AbhDHSM2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Apr 2021 14:12:28 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:36784 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232666AbhDHSM1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Apr 2021 14:12:27 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 54E9B610CA; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 18:12:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1617905536; bh=BqztVmZIbJuytVg+mW+7eFDUwYfIKYJkiciFaVu9TIQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=WHSt3CuP58xfpmbv3+G0Ltl/LM9Kc5xBAH6pMNsnTX3NNoi0E23Nrv0BkLMhjxYBl 3EWuzdSBZdQt+zrka9nbYtdLVkArylHqgQUK43c2ioNQ0Yi4pSe6KJbIYyEZde2kNe V2USA7il7fkRZMfYMQyFMWOkBPKQaHIKxAkObwd+kC0bCQ+l3pEnMWY3Unw34GvXj9 /7wVU9Jr9krrlCDKO8pEhXplY1laNvu3IcqnO7AqTYc87yJ1wWoGNhBBBHTM0l2ulo d7PJnRzV++6utaGfHjOx3G5bIBljgQLqP7Sxjt2gPFfC/LEnooJrjDLPEjZb8CwRM+ JJ3IVH5J2xCAQ== Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 11:12:10 -0700 From: Nathan Chancellor To: Jian Cai Cc: Nick Desaulniers , Jens Axboe , Guenter Roeck , Christopher Di Bella , Manoj Gupta , Luis Lozano , clang-built-linux , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: fix alignment mismatch. Message-ID: <20210408181210.u7cudatr7zcmbmb2@archlinux-ax161> References: <20210330230249.709221-1-jiancai@google.com> <20210330232946.m5p7426macyjduzm@archlinux-ax161> <114a5697-9b5c-daf1-f0fc-dc190d4db74d@roeck-us.net> <20210331215802.r4rp6wynjqutdoup@archlinux-ax161> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org Hi Jian, On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 10:57:54AM -0700, Jian Cai wrote: > So this issue is blocking the LLVM upgrading on ChromeOS. Nathan, do > you mind sending out the smaller patch like Nick suggested just to see > what feedback we could get? I could send it for you if you are busy, > and please let me know what tags I should use in that case. > > Thanks, > Jian I will go ahead and send the smaller patch at some point today. For what it's worth, Nick brought up https://reviews.llvm.org/D100037, which may be relevant here. Cheers, Nathan > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 3:06 PM Nick Desaulniers > wrote: > > > > 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