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: <20210330230249.709221-1-jiancai@google.com> <20210330232946.m5p7426macyjduzm@archlinux-ax161>
 <114a5697-9b5c-daf1-f0fc-dc190d4db74d@roeck-us.net> <CA+SOCLKbrOS9HJHLqRrdeq2ene_Rjs42ak9UzA=jtYb0hqWY1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+SOCLLBgKtTz732O5zcrNs_F=iS6C2bE4HBmJfoPTum3Yu1oQ@mail.gmail.com> <20210331215802.r4rp6wynjqutdoup@archlinux-ax161>
In-Reply-To: <20210331215802.r4rp6wynjqutdoup@archlinux-ax161>
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Mar 2021 15:06:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdmoud9=Uf2xN7q1c1gP06ZNU4K2-Q5PDD-LTynHC+qOMA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: fix alignment mismatch.
To:     Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc:     Jian Cai <jiancai@google.com>, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Christopher Di Bella <cjdb@google.com>,
        Manoj Gupta <manojgupta@google.com>,
        Luis Lozano <llozano@google.com>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 2:58 PM Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 02:27:03PM -0700, Jian Cai wrote:
> >
> > I just realized you already proposed solutions for skipping the check
> > in https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20210310225240.4epj2mdmzt4vurr3@archlinux-ax161/#t.
> > Do you have any plans to send them for review?
>
> I was hoping to gather some feedback on which option would be preferred
> by Jens and the other ClangBuiltLinux folks before I sent them along. I
> can send the first just to see what kind of feedback I can gather.

Either approach is fine by me. The smaller might be easier to get
accepted into stable. The larger approach will probably become more
useful in the future (having the diag infra work properly with clang).
I think the ball is kind of in Jens' court to decide.  Would doing
both be appropriate, Jens? Have the smaller patch tagged for stable
disabling it for the whole file, then another commit on top not tagged
for stable that adds the diag infra, and a third on top replacing the
file level warning disablement with local diags to isolate this down
to one case?  It's a fair but small amount of churn IMO; but if Jens
is not opposed it seems fine?
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers