Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 22 May 2023 17:52:16 -0400
From:   Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>,
        Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locking: SIX locks (shared/intent/exclusive)
Message-ID: <ZGvkEFjNJSQHopAT@moria.home.lan>
References: <20230522171314.1953699-1-kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
 <CAHk-=wi3vkmsiEDF=kYSAV2f1e1B6J6L-oikmdik6p_kBq_dhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZGvM2nqmft0IbB2U@moria.home.lan>
 <CAHk-=wgxN65O-F3R5detmma2MDjDRn4S_qkeKVCCp95c5+gYmA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wgxN65O-F3R5detmma2MDjDRn4S_qkeKVCCp95c5+gYmA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 01:53:36PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 1:13 PM Kent Overstreet
> <kent.overstreet@linux.dev> wrote:
> >
> > Uh, I think you're wrong on this one - structs with designated
> > initializers have unspecified fields initialized to 0
> 
> That's definitely true for unspecified fields.
> 
> But there *are* no fields. Only padding.
> 
> That said, gcc does seem to always initialize the whole thing. We even
> rely on it when it comes to structures, but I'm not sure it's strictly
> standardized - and I'm particularly not sure about unions.
> 
> But there are counter-examples, like this:
> 
>     https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104607
> 
> so maybe even structures aren't always initialized fully?

Yeah, I have to concede - if we can't rely on struct padding being
initialized we can't rely on union padding either.

> No, Because of *alignment* issues.
> 
> An u32 is 4-byte aligned. But "set_bit()" requires "long" alignmnent,.

Ah - right...