Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 22 Mar 2019 09:31:06 -0700
From:   Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc:     Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/17] kbuild: Disable -Waddress-of-packed-member for gcc
 9
Message-ID: <20190322163106.GD24002@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
References: <20190321220009.29334-1-andi@firstfloor.org>
 <20190321220009.29334-2-andi@firstfloor.org>
 <CAK8P3a31L6ddJ1JPpygHqeVspExv7eaKWsLQ5pb+T8LAF2Zjtw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a31L6ddJ1JPpygHqeVspExv7eaKWsLQ5pb+T8LAF2Zjtw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 02:58:51PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:00 PM Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
> >
> > From: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
> >
> > This warning is very noisy in a default build with gcc 9.
> > Move it into W=2 only.
> >
> > Cc: arnd@arndb.de
> > Cc: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
> 
> I think W=2 is too aggressive. On many architectures, this finds
> real bugs and the false positives tend to be trivial to fix
> (by removing the bogus __packed annotation), which improves
> the generated code in the process.

It might waste more memory or make the data structure incompatible
with something external.

> 
> Moving it to W=1 for the moment is probably fine, but ideally
> I think we should fix the kernel to behave according to the
> C standard.

Okay, so is there anybody working on this?

AFAIK it's not an issue on x86 at all.

-Andi