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:   Wed, 19 May 2021 14:45:20 +0900
From:   Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc:     Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, rientjes@google.com, penberg@kernel.org,
        cl@linux.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        naresh.kamboju@linaro.org, clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com,
        linux-next@vger.kernel.org, ndesaulniers@google.com,
        lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, arnd@arndb.de,
        Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm, slub: change run-time assertion in
 kmalloc_index() to compile-time
Message-ID: <20210519054520.GB26916@hyeyoo>
References: <20210511173448.GA54466@hyeyoo>
 <20210515210950.GA52841@hyeyoo>
 <41c65455-a35b-3ad3-54f9-49ca7105bfa9@suse.cz>
 <YKC9CeAfw3aBmHTU@archlinux-ax161>
 <20210518003859.GC80297@hyeyoo>
 <a1287a21-bcbb-77ed-c88d-f5890b785213@kernel.org>
 <71416382-2e4c-5e03-df9c-265fda41c2de@suse.cz>
 <20210518111814.GA114501@hyeyoo>
 <aa74a894-8b39-b1c9-cfe8-2fcf879b7624@suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <aa74a894-8b39-b1c9-cfe8-2fcf879b7624@suse.cz>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 01:34:07PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 5/18/21 1:18 PM, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> > On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 11:28:17AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> On 5/18/21 2:43 AM, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> >> > On 5/17/2021 5:38 PM, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 11:34:49PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> >> >>> This should work I think:
> >> >>
> >> >> compiled well with clang-10.0.1, clang-11.0.0,
> >> >> and gcc-10.2.0 with x86_64 default config.
> >> >>
> >> >> is the condition CONFIG_CLANG_VERSION > 110000,
> >> >> not including 110000 it self?
> >> 
> >> Good spot.
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> >> > Ah sorry, that should definitely be >= :(
> >> > 
> >> > That is what I get for writing an email that late... in reality, it probably
> >> > won't matter due to the availability of 11.0.1 and 11.1.0 but it should
> >> > absolutely be changed.
> >> > 
> >> > I have not given Nick's patch a go yet but would something like this be
> >> > acceptable?
> >> 
> >> Yes.
> > 
> > You mean Nick's patch to added with Nathan's code?
> 
> No, I thought Nathan was asking about his own proposal. I don't think Nick's
> patch that adds 26 index solves the issue. Nathan's proposal fixed with '>=' is OK.

Ah, Okay! I sent the patch.

Thanks,
Hyeonggon