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 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2839EC433EF for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2021 03:19:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4FA0610A0 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2021 03:19:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232440AbhKBDWP (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Nov 2021 23:22:15 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:60316 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231830AbhKBDWK (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Nov 2021 23:22:10 -0400 Received: from mail-ot1-x32a.google.com (mail-ot1-x32a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73B15C061714 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2021 20:19:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ot1-x32a.google.com with SMTP id 107-20020a9d0a74000000b00553bfb53348so28225520otg.0 for ; Mon, 01 Nov 2021 20:19:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=mP0iUWFx62fiXXe3MsF+0AGzL9NGYQHX3AhW02hM5CQ=; b=HyJL0kiVhRfIRR+S5XXs0gkb8JaTF10my+YOr5H0MtgAW6y0y3fgGvUIlzGQvFX/+8 MAUu9TtGxeOElAes+QNYmeeNPsSFwxs/kiiun9j51CmS1w+lbDsleutCK96aCAJR1sqy Mm5KcZPU0ZYRcW98q0zTWmZif1oJ1s8tZasDq11DbVe4I7E9PC8AD8X37+xY7uUFm+gm I6HZKtKR10Z4nN9WBVxm2WUIGLZnoihUKXQ3GdaUuR1ePUkNwBgBvKK2MMJOYWkFzAW8 GkS+blYhOFGBvgUrDqWa2A7rxcM2X2AD/rGeeiIUAJUvFmGuwja8jbwFbzZl1Xfp88vc dnew== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=mP0iUWFx62fiXXe3MsF+0AGzL9NGYQHX3AhW02hM5CQ=; b=c0CR6M+kdIgvroeprj2X9lEiPvoXuc8d0EcK0NVnCj5yEfmwfx30XCdNS0FitagV5a OmWgdHtMe/AVeSuAbLqDovXab2HEm7AMsITa2o6Lq92sbRf3NEg397/lXSUn0TOKOuXI RPlEfMhWSR4d0qXOrz68D9gsW5cMFghR5vIIGIIECkqTfsulF8mpAhwYvN7dVrT2hxW4 rRlPldNbWFPbGcBvJKfF3kVL1RUbnYeT/7II4dQH28fpxd/afgcyNnTScQ92Z9+za/XA kzwdTuc3s6S3CS5GBmbQVeM39M2n71h9mlVPksCJuQYZTSuMaufFI5F6/ClGayb7mWv9 JK4w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530ouyHeEnsUlngcia5pZyYhGCNp/0kgyqNlgag6w6oFLpS2aY2w AhieRouGZ9VwebZN+OQ8/b8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy5O64NxW7nPZ8yjcJjmzSi9to+/oIt19Cw+7Dkjz22oCusCO6HZ8EsnVhrUmy+DMOnBPn8Ww== X-Received: by 2002:a9d:57c9:: with SMTP id q9mr24581201oti.281.1635823175837; Mon, 01 Nov 2021 20:19:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server.roeck-us.net ([2600:1700:e321:62f0:329c:23ff:fee3:9d7c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d24sm2097893otq.5.2021.11.01.20.19.34 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 01 Nov 2021 20:19:35 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Guenter Roeck Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2021 20:19:31 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Linux 5.15 Message-ID: <20211102031931.GA437868@roeck-us.net> References: <20211101002346.GA304515@roeck-us.net> <89a3686d-1ef6-4677-5d9f-f5e15a77c50e@roeck-us.net> 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-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 06:44:39PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 6:18 PM Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > > Replacing "strlen(UTS_RELEASE)" with "sizeof(UTS_RELEASE) - 1" seems to do > > the trick, at least with gcc 11.2 and v5.15. I just wonder if that would be > > acceptable. Any idea ? > > Looks sane to me. > > I don't understand why gcc complains about that thing in the first > place, much less why it only happens on m68k, but whatever... > > The other - and perhaps better - option would be to just uninline > memcpy_and_pad() entirely, move it to lib/string.c, and only have the > declaration in . > > Because the only reason to have it as an inline function is when the > compiler can statically optimize a call site: but it's really not a > performance-critical function to begin with, and clearly the compiler > instead just *breaks* rather than optimize that call-site. > Excellent suggestion. I'll submit a patch to do just that. Thanks, Guenter