[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251118055710.GA22733@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 06:57:10 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Carlos Maiolino <cem@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>,
Chris Li <sparse@...isli.org>, linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: make xfs sparse-warning free
On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 09:56:51AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I know you looked at that clang context thing earlier, and assumed
> that that is what triggered this work in the first place?
In this case not directly, although patch 2 was originally done for
that. Patch 1 is newer than those experiments, but only because we
just started using lockref in this merge window, and it should apply
for that as well.
> > Patch 3 duplicates some XFS code to work around the lock context tracking,
> > but I think it is pretty silly.
>
> makes me go "if you have to make the code worse to make sparse happy,
> maybe just look at the clang context tracking instead?"
Well, that's why I said I didn't like it it and included it more as
an example for the sparse developers to see what goes wrong.
> Because I *assume* that the more complete clang context tracking
> series doesn't need that?
I assume the same, but the quota changes the cause this are new, and I
haven't combined them yet with the context tracking experiments I did a
while ago.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists