On 5/18/21 2:43 AM, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > On 5/17/2021 5:38 PM, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote: >> On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 11:34:49PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote: >>> This should work I think: >> >> compiled well with clang-10.0.1, clang-11.0.0, >> and gcc-10.2.0 with x86_64 default config. >> >> is the condition CONFIG_CLANG_VERSION > 110000, >> not including 110000 it self? Good spot. > Ah sorry, that should definitely be >= :( > > That is what I get for writing an email that late... in reality, it probably > won't matter due to the availability of 11.0.1 and 11.1.0 but it should > absolutely be changed. > > I have not given Nick's patch a go yet but would something like this be > acceptable? Yes. > If so, did you want me to send a formal fixup patch or did you want > to send a v4? I have no personal preference. At this point a fixup is the usual way. Andrew might squash it to the original patch (also with Marco's fixup) before sending to Linus. >>> diff --git a/include/linux/slab.h b/include/linux/slab.h >>> index 9d316aac0aba..1b653266f2aa 100644 >>> --- a/include/linux/slab.h >>> +++ b/include/linux/slab.h >>> @@ -413,7 +413,7 @@ static __always_inline unsigned int >>> __kmalloc_index(size_t size, >>> if (size <= 16 * 1024 * 1024) return 24; >>> if (size <= 32 * 1024 * 1024) return 25; >>> - if (size_is_constant) >>> + if ((IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CC_IS_GCC) || CONFIG_CLANG_VERSION > 110000) && >>> size_is_constant) >>> BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(1, "unexpected size in kmalloc_index()"); >>> else >>> BUG(); >
