Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 12 (bcachefs, objtool)

[Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>]

On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 07:06:26PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 11:08:29PM +0200, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 04:36:55PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 9/11/23 22:26, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > > 
> > > > Changes since 20230911:
> > > > 
> > > > New tree: bcachefs
> > > > 
> > > > The bcachefs tree gained a semantic conflict against Linus' tree for
> > > > which I applied a patch.
> > > > 
> > > > The wireless-next tree gaind a conflict against the wireless tree.
> > > > 
> > > > Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 4095
> > > >  1552 files changed, 346893 insertions(+), 22945 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 
> > > on x86_64:
> > > 
> > > vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: bch2_dev_buckets_reserved.part.0() is missing an ELF size annotation
> > 
> > Here ya go:
> > 
> > ---8<---
> > 
> > From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
> > Subject: [PATCH] bcachefs: Remove undefined behavior in bch2_dev_buckets_reserved()
> > 
> > In general it's a good idea to avoid using bare unreachable() because it
> > introduces undefined behavior in compiled code.  In this case it even
> > confuses GCC into emitting an empty unused
> > bch2_dev_buckets_reserved.part.0() function.
> > 
> > Use BUG() instead, which is nice and defined.  While in theory it should
> > never trigger, if something were to go awry and the BCH_WATERMARK_NR
> > case were to actually hit, the failure mode is much more robust.
> 
> Thanks, want to do the other two cases too? :)

Hm, which cases are you referring to?

-- 
Josh