Hi Tejun, El Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 08:32:53AM -0700 Tejun Heo ha dit: > Hello, Nick. > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:15:55AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > > 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. > > Why is that a problem tho? We know that it doesn't have any flexible > array member so there's no storage allocated to it. > > > > 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? > > Because there are different ways to use the struct? > > > >> 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. > > Here, not necessarily but I don't want to move it for a bogus reason. > Why would we disallow embedding structs with flexible members in the > middle when it can be done and is useful? If we want to discuss > whether we want to avoid such usages in the kernel (but why?), sure, > let's have that discussion but we can't decide that on "clang warns on > it by default". >From your earlier comment I understand that there is no problem in this case because we know that cgroup_root->cgrp will always be empty. However in other instances the warning could point out actual errors in the code, so I think it is good to have this warning generally enabled. If cgroup_root was defined in a .c file we could consider to disable the warning locally, but since the definition is in a header that is widely included (indirectly through linux/cgroup.h and net/sock.h) this doesn't seem to be an option. Is there a good reason for the current position of cgrp within cgroup_root? If there are no drawbacks in moving it to the end of the struct I think Nick's patch is a reasonable solution. -- 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