Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 10 Jul 2020 10:53:27 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] x86/percpu: Clean up percpu_to_op()
Message-ID: <20200710085327.GW4800@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200530221127.459704-1-brgerst@gmail.com>
 <20200530221127.459704-3-brgerst@gmail.com>
 <20200709103024.GO597537@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAMzpN2i3TPxpf5ktaQgb5EmB9wd84V+J5U6=_MuihtXx1-cp+A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMzpN2i3TPxpf5ktaQgb5EmB9wd84V+J5U6=_MuihtXx1-cp+A@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 12:38:23AM -0400, Brian Gerst wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 6:30 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 06:11:19PM -0400, Brian Gerst wrote:
> > > +     if (0) {                                                        \
> > > +             typeof(_var) pto_tmp__;                                 \
> > > +             pto_tmp__ = (_val);                                     \
> > > +             (void)pto_tmp__;                                        \
> > > +     }                                                               \
> >
> > This is repeated at least once more; and it looks very similar to
> > __typecheck() and typecheck() but is yet another variant afaict.
> 
> The problem with typecheck() is that it will complain about a mismatch
> between unsigned long and u64 (defined as unsigned long long) even
> though both are 64-bits wide on x86-64.  Cleaning that mess up is
> beyond the scope of this series, so I kept the existing checks.

Fair enough; thanks for explaining.