From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out0-202.mail.aliyun.com (out0-202.mail.aliyun.com [140.205.0.202]) (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 6BA961FFC41 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 14:18:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=140.205.0.202 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750947513; cv=none; b=ADHN4slzwMaLUDBu/NPExs/T+qdXCrAxRq92toqcsIMLHPmCuy39PpSiTd4rpjX5uqm/QYjqDmOCqaqbU7VaqJZwqI6BpOZRGAriF4zNkI7oX92UCa6knhoQsc7Lfu7MiiKrPJqOViY0UKl7KsGKmcfdBZ9xJuG23kTgIbx0kjM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750947513; c=relaxed/simple; bh=UToGqjLniKEjOcmMftRQQ79V2lDC11PqirLgMZbbQEA=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=h9I4hzRud3lyuufQi2Le8mLaFCuBOdxydB4oyVxV2Wxj2N5wTrE/KY2cBK15gXsmodBt1N/7DR0a2sPhklkH9fSL6yo5B6eHrzLuuqsRSF68Jj1/acaMCt3OT1rY8bhODsU8lQjrJvnSdvJD6S13eGMpyNsgueaFfcL9kOwlkHE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=antgroup.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=antgroup.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=antgroup.com header.i=@antgroup.com header.b=aWoSek5z; arc=none smtp.client-ip=140.205.0.202 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=antgroup.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=antgroup.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=antgroup.com header.i=@antgroup.com header.b="aWoSek5z" DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=antgroup.com; s=default; t=1750947500; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From:Content-Type; bh=NnA5hU4w76XtfuXjc9T7ovjYs8AsRuW+URyzZY2p7PU=; b=aWoSek5zv7djO32Qt/sSsyUuv9pTQEsI6asvl8HZ7Y0/UD2BnLRHUaPjPnQ7cUiFPUpGpHCSFjQhySmDYQsffA7stn+uBTpNLhqtrNubmFVohXD3m1JvQA02dq7ooE9j3vVd9Tau5ca+H1J3r+VrlvFpM23cnVglz/gk1sqp8yM= Received: from 30.174.123.233(mailfrom:tiwei.btw@antgroup.com fp:SMTPD_---.dXILOmi_1750947492 cluster:ay29) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 22:18:20 +0800 Message-ID: <963cbbe7-8064-461e-b134-1a43e037c33a@antgroup.com> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 22:18:12 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] uml-for-6.16-rc4 To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Johannes Berg , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-um@lists.infradead.org, Richard Weinberger , Anton Ivanov References: <20250625121529.42911-3-johannes@sipsolutions.net> <0d630dec-41fe-4968-8d6a-7faae8a554a1@antgroup.com> Content-Language: en-US From: "Tiwei Bie" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2025/6/26 11:48, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 at 19:44, Tiwei Bie wrote: >> >> The behavior of gcc and clang differs. Clang's behavior appears to be >> related to the volatile qualifier in arch_spinlock_t: > > Ahh. That kind of makes sense. I also just noticed it today after taking a closer look. > > At the same time, I think clang is being stupid here. Yes, it makes > sense to treat volatile specially in this way - just not for an > initializer. > > I realize that initializers can be made to be their own data > structures in modern C (ie taking the address of an initializer and > using the initializer itself as an argument to a function call, for > example), but when an initializer is used to set the value of a > variable, the only real thing there is that variable. That makes sense! > > Oh well. The patch certainly looks fine and I obviously already merged > the pull request. Yeah, I saw that. Thanks! :) > It does make me go "I wonder how many other places > clang just generates stupid code due to this". +1. Regards, Tiwei