Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 Mar 2022 11:51:52 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] Add dynamic memory allocator support for nolibc |
| |
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 04:41:14AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Hi Ammar, > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 05:20:31PM +0700, Ammar Faizi wrote: > > On 3/29/22 5:17 PM, Ammar Faizi wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > This is a patchset v2 to add dynamic memory allocator support > > > for nolibc after 2 RFCs, please review the changes carefully. > > Thank you! For me it's OK for all the series: > > Acked-by: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> > > I do have a minor comment about the use of __builtin_mul_overflow() here. > While this code is included in the kernel and mostly for use with kernel > related stuff, till now I've been careful to support older compilers (I'm > still seeing 4.8, 4.7 and 4.4 commonly in field). I don't find it urgent, > but I think that sooner or later it would be nice to implement an > alternative for compilers missing this builtin, especially if it's the > only one that prevents older compilers from being used. Probably that > something like this (untested) would do the job: > > if (nmemb && ~(size_t)0 / nmemb < size) { > SET_ERRNO(ENOMEM); > return NULL; > } > size *= nmemb; > > But again, for me it's not a showstopper and can be improved later. > > > Sorry, forgot to replace === with --- in for each patch. > > Should I resend? > > Let's see what Paul prefers. sed 's/===/---/' on the mbox should fix > it otherwise a resend will be needed.
Given that I am adding your Acked-by anyway, why not? ;-)
But please check the commits to make sure that this had the desired effect.
Thanx, Paul
| |