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=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,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 12E32C43460 for ; Tue, 11 May 2021 08:36:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7903361928 for ; Tue, 11 May 2021 08:36:04 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7903361928 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.cz Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id C1C346B006E; Tue, 11 May 2021 04:36:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id BCCA46B0071; Tue, 11 May 2021 04:36:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id A46196B0072; Tue, 11 May 2021 04:36:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0131.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.131]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87D836B006E for ; Tue, 11 May 2021 04:36:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin10.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45DD2942F for ; Tue, 11 May 2021 08:36:03 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78128292606.10.91C86C5 Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by imf03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0F70C000C72 for ; Tue, 11 May 2021 08:35:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF93BB162; Tue, 11 May 2021 08:36:01 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: kmalloc_index: make compiler break when size is not supported To: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com> Cc: Matthew Wilcox , cl@linux.com, penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20210508221328.7338-1-42.hyeyoo@gmail.com> <20210510135857.GA3594@hyeyoo> <9d0ffe49-a2e2-6c81-377b-4c8d2147dff8@suse.cz> <20210510150230.GA74915@hyeyoo> <90591d7e-41e4-9ae5-54ae-ded467c498cf@suse.cz> <20210510153846.GA77398@hyeyoo> From: Vlastimil Babka Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 10:36:01 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210510153846.GA77398@hyeyoo> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Authentication-Results: imf03.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (imf03.hostedemail.com: domain of vbabka@suse.cz designates 195.135.220.15 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=vbabka@suse.cz X-Rspamd-Server: rspam05 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: C0F70C000C72 X-Stat-Signature: 8exapu6puoyby3ruq9ns7ofqe9woyydb Received-SPF: none (suse.cz>: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=imf03; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=""; helo=mx2.suse.de; client-ip=195.135.220.15 X-HE-DKIM-Result: none/none X-HE-Tag: 1620722154-72866 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 5/10/21 5:38 PM, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote: > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 05:19:58PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > >> I'd rephrase the subject: >> mm, slub: change run-time assertion in kmalloc_index() to compile-time >> > >> "... compiler will generate a run-time BUG() while a compile-time error is also >> possible, and better" > >> "there's no need to..." >> kmalloc-32M > > > Vlastimil Babka and Christoph Lameter, thank you for reviewing the patch. > > I'm not familiar with kernel community yet. should I send patch v3 again, > or can you update it directly? I think it would be best if you sent v3, the way you did with v1 - inline. With v2 it looked like a mail body with you message and patch as attachment. We want the testing bots to pick it up and they might work only with inline patch. Thanks.