On 05. 06. 25, 19:31, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 7:15 PM Dave Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/5/25 07:27, Jiri Slaby wrote:
Reverting this gives me back to normal sizes.
Any ideas?
I don't see any reason not to revert it. The benefits weren't exactly
clear from the changelogs or cover letter. Enabling "various compiler
checks" doesn't exactly scream that this is critical to end users in
some way.
The only question is if we revert just this last patch or the whole series.
Uros, is there an alternative to reverting?
This functionality can easily be disabled in include/linux/compiler.h
by not defining USE_TYPEOF_UNQUAL:
#if CC_HAS_TYPEOF_UNQUAL && !defined(__CHECKER__)
# define USE_TYPEOF_UNQUAL 1
#endif
(support for typeof_unqual keyword is required to handle __seg_gs
qualifiers), but ...
... the issue is reportedly fixed, please see [1], and ...
Confirmed, I need a patched userspace (libbpf).
... you will disable much sought of feature, just ask tglx (and please
read his rant at [2]):
Given this is the second time I hit a bug with this, perhaps introduce
an EXPERIMENTAL CONFIG option, so that random users can simply disable
it if an issue occurs? Without the need of patching random userspace and
changing random kernel headers?
--q--
If the compiler people would have provided a way to utilize the anyway
non-standard name space support in a useful way, I could have spared the
time to bang my head agaist the wall simply because this would have failed
to build in the first place long ago. That just makes me sad.
--/q--
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
thanks,
--
js
suse labs
