On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:30 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:33:21PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>> When compiling arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c with HOSTCC=clang, the
>> following warning is observed:
>>
>> ./include/linux/cgroup-defs.h:391:16: warning: field 'cgrp' with
>> variable sized type 'struct cgroup' not at the end of a struct or class
>> is a GNU extension [-Wgnu-variable-sized-type-not-at-end]
>> struct cgroup cgrp;
>> ^
>> Flexible array members are a C99 feature, but must be the last member of
>> a struct. Structs with flexible members composed in other structs must
>> also be the final members, unless using GNU C extensions.
>>
>> struct cgroup_root's member cgrp is a struct cgroup, struct cgroup's
>> member ancestor_ids is a flexible member.
>
> This is silly tho. We know the the root group embedded there won't
> have any ancestor_ids.
Sure, but struct cgroup_root is still declared as having a struct
cgroup not declared as the final member.
> Also, in general, nothing prevents us from
> doing something like the following.
>
> struct outer_struct {
> blah blah;
> struct inner_struct_with_flexible_array_member inner;
> unsigned long storage_for_flexible_array[NR_ENTRIES];
> blah blah;
> };
At that point, then why have the struct with flexible array member in
the first place?
>> or specific location of the member cgrp within struct cgroup_root AFAICT.
> I think we should just silence the bogus warning.
Is the order of the members actually important? Otherwise it seems
that we're taking advantage of a GNU C extension for no real reason,
which is what I'm trying to avoid. Please reconsider.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
