On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 07:06:26PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 11:08:29PM +0200, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 04:36:55PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 9/11/23 22:26, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Changes since 20230911: > > > > > > > > New tree: bcachefs > > > > > > > > The bcachefs tree gained a semantic conflict against Linus' tree for > > > > which I applied a patch. > > > > > > > > The wireless-next tree gaind a conflict against the wireless tree. > > > > > > > > Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 4095 > > > > 1552 files changed, 346893 insertions(+), 22945 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > on x86_64: > > > > > > vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: bch2_dev_buckets_reserved.part.0() is missing an ELF size annotation > > > > Here ya go: > > > > ---8<--- > > > > From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: [PATCH] bcachefs: Remove undefined behavior in bch2_dev_buckets_reserved() > > > > In general it's a good idea to avoid using bare unreachable() because it > > introduces undefined behavior in compiled code. In this case it even > > confuses GCC into emitting an empty unused > > bch2_dev_buckets_reserved.part.0() function. > > > > Use BUG() instead, which is nice and defined. While in theory it should > > never trigger, if something were to go awry and the BCH_WATERMARK_NR > > case were to actually hit, the failure mode is much more robust. > > Thanks, want to do the other two cases too? :) Hm, which cases are you referring to? -- Josh
