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 13:17:24 +0200
From:   Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        linux-efi <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] EFI fixes
Message-ID: <20200710111724.m4jaci73pykalxys@wunner.de>
References: <20200628182601.GA84577@gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wgD+q+oDdtukYC74_cDX5i0Ynf0GLhuNe2Faaokejj6fQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200708162053.GU4800@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAHk-=wggLLv8dY7ViOm7rdHxVNKJUkZMuR90vXO307WkBT8qrw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK8P3a1GFjM5-ENf7XL6jjUvRdJhgjzYpSGD5R7TmW6oWEhYRA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200709103459.wenqhbp52vesr7e5@box>
 <CAK8P3a3Cd30gthLj-Kw8dsNa2Cse3YfUs9q8c=nc7fHtQ-QLSg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200710110034.zthb7lctf7xwj2yt@box>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200710110034.zthb7lctf7xwj2yt@box>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 02:00:34PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 12:09:36PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > I forgot why we care though -- is there any behavior of gnu11
> > that we prefer over the gnu99 behavior, or is it just going with
> > the times because it's the right thing to do? All the interesting
> > features of c11 seem to also be available as extensions in
> > gcc-4.9's gnu89, though I could not find a definite list of the
> > differences.
> 
> Last time (llist_entry_safe() thread) it came up due to local variables in
> loops feature that is not available for gnu89. Both gnu99 and gnu11 is
> fine.

Same for anonymous structs/unions.  I used to have a use case for that
in struct efi_dev_path in include/linux/efi.h, but Ard refactored it
in a gnu89-compatible way for v5.7 with db8952e7094f.

(BTW, revisiting that commit I think it should have been broken into
smaller pieces, in particular the efi_get_device_by_path() argument
and #ifdef change should have gone into a separate commit.)

Thanks,

Lukas