Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs+bounces-2651-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 23:33:22 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, joro@8bytes.org, will@kernel.org,
	trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com, anna@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de,
	herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, davem@davemloft.net, jikos@kernel.org,
	benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com, tytso@mit.edu, jack@suse.com,
	dennis@kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, cl@linux.com,
	jakub@cloudflare.com, penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com,
	iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, vbabka@suse.cz, edumazet@google.com,
	kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, iommu@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, acpica-devel@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-input@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	kent.overstreet@linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: change inlined allocation helpers to account at
 the call site
Message-ID: <Zg8qstJNfK07siNn@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20240404165404.3805498-1-surenb@google.com>
 <Zg7dmp5VJkm1nLRM@casper.infradead.org>
 <CAJuCfpHbTCwDERz+Hh+aLZzNdtSFKA+Q7sW-xzvmFmtyHCqROg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJuCfpHy5Xo76S7h9rEuA3cQ1pVqurL=wmtQ2cx9-xN1aa_C_A@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJuCfpHy5Xo76S7h9rEuA3cQ1pVqurL=wmtQ2cx9-xN1aa_C_A@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 03:17:43PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> Ironically, checkpatch generates warnings for these type casts:
> 
> WARNING: unnecessary cast may hide bugs, see
> http://c-faq.com/malloc/mallocnocast.html
> #425: FILE: include/linux/dma-fence-chain.h:90:
> + ((struct dma_fence_chain *)kmalloc(sizeof(struct dma_fence_chain),
> GFP_KERNEL))
> 
> I guess I can safely ignore them in this case (since we cast to the
> expected type)?

I find ignoring checkpatch to be a solid move 99% of the time.

I really don't like the codetags.  This is so much churn, and it could
all be avoided by just passing in _RET_IP_ or _THIS_IP_ depending on
whether we wanted to profile this function or its caller.  vmalloc
has done it this way since 2008 (OK, using __builtin_return_address())
and lockdep has used _THIS_IP_ / _RET_IP_ since 2006.