[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z_QgoB381ltKBdbG@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2025 20:59:44 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org,
kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] x86/mm/pat: (un)track_pfn_copy() fix + improvements
* Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org> wrote:
> > least for non-struct variables. Even for structs I would
> > zero-initialize and *maybe* allow a non-initialized opt-in for
> > cases where it matters. It matters in very few cases in praxis. And
> > don't get me started about the stupidity that is to not initialize
> > holes in struct members ...)
>
> Everyone sane uses CONFIG_INIT_STACK_ALL_ZERO these days.
Good, although why is this compiler option named so weirdly in Clang:
CC_AUTO_VAR_INIT_ZERO_ENABLER := -enable-trivial-auto-var-init-zero-knowing-it-will-be-removed-from-clang
Hopefully it is named thusly because Clang has adopted GCC's
-ftrivial-auto-var-init=zero?
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists