On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 02:25:20PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote: > > I'd say the BUILD_BUG has done it's job and found an issue, fix it by > > not defining pud_leaf? I don't see any calls to pud_leaf in loongarch > > at least > > Yes, that sounds better too to me, however it means we may also risk other > archs that can fail another defconfig build.. and I worry I bring trouble > to multiple such cases. Fundamentally it's indeed my patch that broke > those builds, so I still sent the change and leave that for arch developers > to decide the best for the archs. But your change causes silent data corruption if the code path is run.. I think we are overall better to wade through the compile time bugs from linux-next. Honestly if there were alot then I'd think there would be more complaints already. Maybe it should just be a seperate step from this series. Jason
