Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:08:15 +0000 | From | "Jan Beulich" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: unify copy_from_user() size checking |
| |
>>> On 29.10.13 at 10:54, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> * Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote: > >> >>> On 26.10.13 at 12:31, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote: >> > * Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote: >> >> I'd like to point out though that with __compiletime_object_size() >> >> being restricted to gcc before 4.6, the whole construct is going to >> >> become more and more pointless going forward. I would question >> >> however that commit 2fb0815c9ee6b9ac50e15dd8360ec76d9fa46a2 ("gcc4: >> >> disable __compiletime_object_size for GCC 4.6+") was really necessary, >> >> and instead this should have been dealt with as is done here from the >> >> beginning. >> > >> > Can we now revert 2fb0815c9ee6? >> >> Actually I'm afraid parisc would first need to follow the changes >> done on x86 here, or else they'd run into (compile time) issues >> (s390 and tile only emit warnings, i.e. would at worst suffer >> cosmetically unless subtrees putting -Werror in place are >> affected). > > Given how trivial __compiletime_object_size() is, we could replicate > a (differently named) copy of that in x86 uaccess.h?
I would never have dared to suggest something like that...
But if you're fine with that, I can certainly do so. I'd then even wonder whether we shouldn't re-use the same name, #undef-ing the one we got from compiler*.h - after all the goal would be for compiler-gcc4.h to change in exactly that way.
> This is something that would be pretty platform dependent anyway.
Why do you think so? That's entirely a compiler construct.
Jan
| |