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:   Thu, 10 Dec 2020 21:24:16 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>,
        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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] genksyms: Ignore module scoped _Static_assert()
Message-Id: <20201210212416.15d48d2a924f2e73e6bd172b@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <CANpmjNN3akp+Npf6tqJR44kn=85WpkRh89Z4BQtBh0nGJEiGEQ@mail.gmail.com>
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>
        <CANpmjNN3akp+Npf6tqJR44kn=85WpkRh89Z4BQtBh0nGJEiGEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 17:25:30 +0100 Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:

> 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.
> :-)

I have
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201203230955.1482058-1-arnd@kernel.org
queued for later this week.