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=-13.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL 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 52220C4361B for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 16:27:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1635623D6B for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 16:27:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2392326AbgLJQ1I (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Dec 2020 11:27:08 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:50560 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2389373AbgLJQ0Y (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Dec 2020 11:26:24 -0500 Received: from mail-ot1-x342.google.com (mail-ot1-x342.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::342]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B3D6C0613CF for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 08:25:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ot1-x342.google.com with SMTP id x13so5393863oto.8 for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 08:25:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qIX8H1T5vlOhy5P+c3dep3UC5lsSHIUYZ7wdp/u5aJM=; b=dqrF4PCXYaQJIYTpF8jNTR7Gi32tmNtFJL8aP/jSV91cL/C89OBVEuz9IRiBfjoEjq J0hf4ZN7He+rh+osgU70Lhi7J5IkEnqgkRkPLcWNe5Qq6mccSvIRDm5H7KHvlnnX08+X 6giihla2aiJDacVzBXxrGMmD5GHs3Dic9GYcEe3EFc+CCeJXJiKi5QbXdfM9R8phSa+u 4mTAYhYB7wCCTulAnQgyNDmLIHbd9vLVLxu3EvnBWmbreNl0yD7/9uClv0JRGXvw+xCW ATae53rfvEBRP4cFO8o9kq2mOr1NJ/pQf5aHNQhyE6vaCsbYqFjMjthWJ6OOfGerD/sn FQZQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qIX8H1T5vlOhy5P+c3dep3UC5lsSHIUYZ7wdp/u5aJM=; b=I6zcgC1894sq1FTXT11N8vCEmFCqY9f9FAEb1HxPUGRkVznk1aO6fxE6rymcFuqJiu lsDvk4TZ/4dUSTdc+6ZJOKTd8oNzMCOY8OrEAViT+C+JL6BfVTrDLJZLTCSS7UfDGF99 GfrtXz6p2OCvr7K0lfLytRGZVrS75KIjsaCfIyWuDo5fVfp4Pietl+C2DmEjunOjKIi/ /3NFVsAhxehZT70B3wHyV+9Ba9HME8765DtdDcFiTmKkBL+1snnIXe1dodd6QcvJIuRO zNzhZ6/g42YLRRE+5UhDUStNAaPOVKkX3GEgIZu+3d1IWm3cUq9dEDGW5oChtqy8B/5e 7LmQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5338XnfWDNcp4VmJyOEqjLRxVhYH35n0xOU4HfIj2ZxeA3/YOoO2 jIR4tso4EPzvN8EyGRFN4zquRIaP++8W6v81+3ONXQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxdkFivw9jbb4XaFzRCxiFNzpjjfYvTL/nlcdoNks1vm3VExyWLwZQosejcTlGadRvr52FR+FcB/eW6cCumtEU= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7cc8:: with SMTP id r8mr6466658otn.233.1607617542402; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 08:25:42 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201201152017.3576951-1-elver@google.com> In-Reply-To: From: Marco Elver Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 17:25:30 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] genksyms: Ignore module scoped _Static_assert() To: Miguel Ojeda Cc: Nick Desaulniers , LKML , kasan-dev , Masahiro Yamada , Joe Perches , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Richard Henderson , Andrew Morton Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 14:29, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 11:35 AM Marco Elver wrote: > > > > It looks like there's no clear MAINTAINER for this. :-/ > > It'd still be good to fix this for 5.11. > > Richard seems to be the author, not sure if he picks patches (CC'd). > > I guess Masahiro or akpm (Cc'd) would be two options; otherwise, I > could pick it up through compiler attributes (stretching the > definition...). Thanks for the info. I did find that there's an alternative patch to fix _Static_assert() with genksyms that was sent 3 days after mine (it's simpler, but might miss cases). I've responded there ( https://lkml.kernel.org/r/X9JI5KpWoo23wkRg@elver.google.com ). Now we have some choice. I'd argue for this patch, because it's not doing preprocessor workarounds, but in the end I won't make that call. :-) Thanks, -- Marco