[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=widciTZs3CCoi7X2+4SnVWrKu1Jv2uOV9+oewXGen7Q9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 12:52:53 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>, "Jason A . Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
"pedro.falcato@...il.com" <pedro.falcato@...il.com>, Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] minmax: Put all the clamp() definitions together
On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 at 11:02, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 at 07:15, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > There is another one that I see with gcc-8 randconfigs (arm64):
>
> So I ended up undoing that part of my patch, so it's a non-issue [..]
I pushed out my current one.
It keeps the old semantics wrt the clamp() static_assert, and it
obviously has the "allow small unsigned types to promote to 'int'"
that I already did earlier.
I still suspect we shouldn't do that relaxed integer promotion rule,
but it's what we used to do, and it's easy to get rid of if we decide
to, and it's a separate issue from the whole "make minmax expansion
more reasonable".
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists