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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201201152017.3576951-1-elver@google.com> <CAKwvOdkcv=FES2CXfoY+AFcvg_rbPd2Nk8sEwXNBJqXL4wQGBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANpmjNOUHdANKQ6EZEzgbVg0+jqWgBEAuoLQxpzQJkstv6fxBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANpmjNOdJZUm1apuEHZz_KYJTEoRU6FVxMwZUrMar021hTd5Cg@mail.gmail.com> <CANiq72kwZtBn-YtWhZmewVNXNbjEXwqeWSpU1iLx45TNoLLOUg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANiq72kwZtBn-YtWhZmewVNXNbjEXwqeWSpU1iLx45TNoLLOUg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Dec 2020 17:25:30 +0100
Message-ID: <CANpmjNN3akp+Npf6tqJR44kn=85WpkRh89Z4BQtBh0nGJEiGEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] genksyms: Ignore module scoped _Static_assert()
To:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Cc:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 14:29, Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 11:35 AM Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > It looks like there's no clear MAINTAINER for this. :-/
> > It'd still be good to fix this for 5.11.
>
> Richard seems to be the author, not sure if he picks patches (CC'd).
>
> I guess Masahiro or akpm (Cc'd) would be two options; otherwise, I
> could pick it up through compiler attributes (stretching the
> definition...).

Thanks for the info. I did find that there's an alternative patch to
fix _Static_assert() with genksyms that was sent 3 days after mine
(it's simpler, but might miss cases). I've responded there (
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/X9JI5KpWoo23wkRg@elver.google.com ).

Now we have some choice. I'd argue for this patch, because it's not
doing preprocessor workarounds, but in the end I won't make that call.
:-)

Thanks,
-- Marco