Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 14:13:56 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
       Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       stable@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kmemcheck: make bitfield annotations truly no-ops when
 disabled
Message-Id: <20091207141356.9e83fd5b.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <1260121333-19642-1-git-send-email-vegard.nossum@gmail.com>
References: <1260121333-19642-1-git-send-email-vegard.nossum@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 889
Lines: 22

On Sun,  6 Dec 2009 18:42:13 +0100
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com> wrote:

> It turns out that even zero-sized struct members (int foo[0];) will affect
> the struct layout, causing us in particular to lose 4 bytes in struct sock.
> 
> This patch fixes the regression in CONFIG_KMEMCHECK=n case.

Which kernel version is the regression relative to?

Should we backport this into 2.6.32.x?

If so, we have a slight problem: someone did
s/MAYBE_BUILD_BUG_ON/BUILD_BUG_ON/ in linux-next (I have feeling it was
me ;)) so the patch I applied had that slight massaging.  Perhaps the
-stable stalwarts can take care of that slight difference.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/