Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto+bounces-3343-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 18:38:39 -0400
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>, 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
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: change inlined allocation helpers to account at
 the call site
Message-ID: <jb25mtkveqf63bv74jhynf6ncxmums5s37esveqsv52yurh4z7@5q55ttv34bia>
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>
 <Zg8qstJNfK07siNn@casper.infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Zg8qstJNfK07siNn@casper.infradead.org>

On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 11:33:22PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 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.

Except you can't. We've been over this; using that approach for tracing
is one thing, using it for actual accounting isn't workable.