On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 09:04:56AM +0800, Christopher Li wrote: > Sorry I jump the conclusion. If it is only concern with MOD_STATIC, > MOD_EXTERN & MOD_TOPLEVEL, that is not a bug issue at all. > I thought you are going to extend that logic to other modifier bits as well. Well ... yes and no :) Like it can be seen in the other patches, I mostly just wrote some tests that, I think, clearly expose soem problems. Those problems can be considered as bugs or not, some clearly are, I think, some much less so but trigger questions. I think we should clearly define what is the desired behavior of modifiers like nocast, noderef, bitwise, ... when - taking the address of an object with such modifiers - using typeof() on such object or pointers - assignment with them (but this seems much better done/defined) The case with 'safe' is similar but its working is a bit different. And indeed, like I think you fear, any changes regarding the address_space will create problems in existing code and it's why I think it's better for now to first look at the situation with the modifiers. You certainly can see this seriemore as the start of a reflexion than a try to solve anything. Luc -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
