From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-b5-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-b5-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.148]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FCCC45009; Mon, 25 Aug 2025 03:59:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.148 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756094373; cv=none; b=u5vr7g2JefcYPIDsNmEE/E9PdvEGsS8BdOO7E8jhZgEOLK/CUjfSt0S64dZKAkI0ekTwkW1t8e3Fs9UGmPP5tN7IYEPVoqruCTL6YxVDyvcUzsVleHolNt6uHKo/hxchw8qTyGjBS2tgpoytVbYibSyj1j99qvs+nS4DvDBDB84= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756094373; c=relaxed/simple; bh=BpLYJBz/OgUK0QsfkqyYCFTLO5lALaDTFxyTD/lHG0o=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=HvVYGl9ST3WIAj1nUdm0n208UhIM/d/VASQDWYnW+06TsnSynITo6BfMsKVIjNScvkuTmjbs8/sz00o3KFZCoPNQPUNvZHuwIHzxTqNHZOjoXX8poJ+xW5CB0c2jnBEmW2vjEDQhX+Z0bnzouAdHKVj81//mPTL5mLIRLsH6R3U= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-m68k.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-m68k.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=eN5jjmdS; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.148 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-m68k.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-m68k.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="eN5jjmdS" Received: from phl-compute-01.internal (phl-compute-01.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailfout.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACC5B1D0009E; Sun, 24 Aug 2025 23:59:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-mailfrontend-02 ([10.202.2.163]) by phl-compute-01.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 24 Aug 2025 23:59:29 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1756094369; x=1756180769; bh=v5afX053KsvJ4SMpwBkx22A4YZ0qtD8eE3+ 3AxdTItg=; b=eN5jjmdSimtXYqdvEELuN5xzugx3IM/Px8l9iPfL1oZGzKqyu9H wPYgPUcs9hInxm9o/PfSklkDT2Cpy4PPfgyXw4zBxM/vMqsUwfvMrdaAfE43KZSX erMlVvcfyZzbxpyQazfLR6KjAx+HzcjM2KiWVCpB1YvdML7f9TAFbeeyP2H2PrKf NeKADOOPcYMV+/3R1xfIk7R6e8jLLt63ZnX5vJnoyUxKdmmSZg0RjYTQUHqnHXTE RIqUPqrBdi4IQKrR08XQXgWQx1+JPJezIsdNwWt7bA0DOJSahp95el6Vnx3hNCRl ei5+7Wuw0h4VvZKgNzJtozZT9/N7o6pxLJQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtdefgddujedufeejucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceu rghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpeffhffvvefujgfkfhggtgesthdtredttd dtvdenucfhrhhomhephfhinhhnucfvhhgrihhnuceofhhthhgrihhnsehlihhnuhigqdhm ieekkhdrohhrgheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepleeuheelheekgfeuvedtveetjeekhf ffkeeffffftdfgjeevkeegfedvueehueelnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfr rghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepfhhthhgrihhnsehlihhnuhigqdhmieekkhdrohhrgh dpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepuddtpdhmohguvgepshhmthhpohhuthdprhgtphhtthhopehi ohifohhrkhgvrhdtsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtoheprghkphhmsehlihhnuh igqdhfohhunhgurghtihhonhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehgvggvrhhtsehlihhnuhig qdhmieekkhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehlrghntggvrdihrghngheslhhinhhugidrug gvvhdprhgtphhtthhopehlihhnuhigqdhkvghrnhgvlhesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdr ohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehmhhhirhgrmhgrtheskhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpth htohepohgrkheshhgvlhhsihhnkhhinhgvthdrfhhipdhrtghpthhtohepphgvthgvrhii sehinhhfrhgruggvrggurdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepshhtrggslhgvsehvghgvrhdrkh gvrhhnvghlrdhorhhg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i58a146ae:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun, 24 Aug 2025 23:59:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2025 13:59:16 +1000 (AEST) From: Finn Thain To: Lance Yang cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, geert@linux-m68k.org, lance.yang@linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mhiramat@kernel.org, oak@helsinkinet.fi, peterz@infradead.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, will@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] atomic: Specify natural alignment for atomic_t In-Reply-To: <20250825032743.80641-1-ioworker0@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ca84cf3-4e9c-6bb7-af3c-5ead372e8025@linux-m68k.org> References: <7d9554bfe2412ed9427bf71ce38a376e06eb9ec4.1756087385.git.fthain@linux-m68k.org> <20250825032743.80641-1-ioworker0@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mon, 25 Aug 2025, Lance Yang wrote: > > However, as we've seen from the kernel test robot's report on > mt6660_chip, this won't solve the cases where a lock is forced to be > unaligned by #pragma pack(1). That will still trigger warnings, IIUC. > I think you've misunderstood the warning that your patch produced. (BTW, I have not seen any warnings from my own patch, so far.) The mistake you made in your patch was to add an alignment attribute to a member of a packed struct. That's why I suggested that you should align the lock instead. Is there some problem with my approach?