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=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 3CADAC433E3 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 11:17:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18ED52077D for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 11:17:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727033AbgGJLRe (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jul 2020 07:17:34 -0400 Received: from bmailout1.hostsharing.net ([83.223.95.100]:35449 "EHLO bmailout1.hostsharing.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727943AbgGJLR3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jul 2020 07:17:29 -0400 Received: from h08.hostsharing.net (h08.hostsharing.net [IPv6:2a01:37:1000::53df:5f1c:0]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.hostsharing.net", Issuer "COMODO RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (not verified)) by bmailout1.hostsharing.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BA0E30002524; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 13:17:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: by h08.hostsharing.net (Postfix, from userid 100393) id E419388DDA8; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 13:17:24 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 13:17:24 +0200 From: Lukas Wunner To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Linus Torvalds , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Ard Biesheuvel , Thomas Gleixner , Borislav Petkov , linux-efi Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] EFI fixes Message-ID: <20200710111724.m4jaci73pykalxys@wunner.de> References: <20200628182601.GA84577@gmail.com> <20200708162053.GU4800@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20200709103459.wenqhbp52vesr7e5@box> <20200710110034.zthb7lctf7xwj2yt@box> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200710110034.zthb7lctf7xwj2yt@box> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Sender: linux-efi-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 02:00:34PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 12:09:36PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > I forgot why we care though -- is there any behavior of gnu11 > > that we prefer over the gnu99 behavior, or is it just going with > > the times because it's the right thing to do? All the interesting > > features of c11 seem to also be available as extensions in > > gcc-4.9's gnu89, though I could not find a definite list of the > > differences. > > Last time (llist_entry_safe() thread) it came up due to local variables in > loops feature that is not available for gnu89. Both gnu99 and gnu11 is > fine. Same for anonymous structs/unions. I used to have a use case for that in struct efi_dev_path in include/linux/efi.h, but Ard refactored it in a gnu89-compatible way for v5.7 with db8952e7094f. (BTW, revisiting that commit I think it should have been broken into smaller pieces, in particular the efi_get_device_by_path() argument and #ifdef change should have gone into a separate commit.) Thanks, Lukas