[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191016161845.GX32742@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 19:18:45 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 11/14] software node: move small properties inline
when copying
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 09:01:26AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:48:57AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:25:53AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > You store a value as union, but going to read as a member of union?
> > I'm pretty sure it breaks standard rules.
>
> No, I move the values _in place_ of the union, and the data is always
> fetched via void pointers. And copying data via char * or memcpy() is
> allowed even in C99 and C11.
>
> But I am wondering why are we actually worrying about all of this? The
> kernel is gnu89 and I think is going to stay this way because we use
> initializers with a cast in a lot of places:
>
> #define __RAW_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(lockname) \
> (raw_spinlock_t) __RAW_SPIN_LOCK_INITIALIZER(lockname)
>
> and C99 and gnu99 do not allow this. See
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20141019231031.GB9319@node.dhcp.inet.fi/
This is simple not a cast.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists