From patchwork Tue Aug 8 01:34:41 2017 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Christopher Li X-Patchwork-Id: 9886415 Return-Path: Received: from mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (pdx-wl-mail.web.codeaurora.org [172.30.200.125]) by pdx-korg-patchwork.web.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BFB7603B4 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2017 01:34:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BFFB2223E for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2017 01:34:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix, from userid 486) id 3F2682874C; Tue, 8 Aug 2017 01:34:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on pdx-wl-mail.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=2.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C9012223E for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2017 01:34:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751924AbdHHBen (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Aug 2017 21:34:43 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f178.google.com ([209.85.192.178]:36678 "EHLO mail-pf0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751891AbdHHBen (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Aug 2017 21:34:43 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-f178.google.com with SMTP id c28so8132910pfe.3 for ; Mon, 07 Aug 2017 18:34:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=GBa/tdEr+cE7RvTK2TjS3lH9y9C6hxh5bDiIPvfZD5w=; b=JSGPEm8edi6ueAzyIRbtQkSuHTxDeb3MLHwH/oPM5J8l5eL7/9CM0luL/wznym4Z4a j4W1DOiPWwh1NQhlcYyXqXNCLMh6e5qQPaNjUBrNwsSB+Geo7225CgE+5waE1/u+qEdd GWnu49/htK3ZgDVMME/w1GCe9IkQS1yXISbqd/uTjzAFywkF1oVjQvkV1f8nEgSGbA80 EnFZ28tM1UHZTFdcuiTaQRQQzGHsv0zLRYcvpTi9FhsFdaIkuIKnA1Jae6KgodWOdBdZ IyeB24r4OHNLL5dv8jktKUSF0xtd/CyUH/srZ4mjGfQ/11ztoyaZNot/Aj3DXEbWJ7PR vz3Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=GBa/tdEr+cE7RvTK2TjS3lH9y9C6hxh5bDiIPvfZD5w=; b=mt++x14kax1gWkny0FVhvlDuovG9Ekx6pD98tgyhhi6Ne2F52Z+7iOPnvdW7uwgO7e HecCTG6r+TXXXDYYUsjJe2MQQP2/OE9ZxpyAEazNHxuSZtoKcRdtenmT/FDQrlM9gnTI mFFBSvrmof0ipsw28IvFU8yCubfP77kSXh6IyQG+z2OUGFlX2Hw9uP7Q/A+3qn8cMF1u aHZ9Yo7Je5DaFMW5umAEZ7MQJFe3c1YkVGUdfsKZzRzVnPqeoGNt77PgLAanT4H9gQBk mdbT1zXdmjjAjwjpwX/htFeMJWOz+nnEx5GMrvegCx9h0Y3tN3CD3IS7kWmUcQY/P7xe 5l2A== X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5jJUMQOepf3J5JjZ/qG/jYMrEpJhNjpY7j93RGaKbPyrHe+kVSr 8posFLq5yVnBb8AfbqrtQugDgklrn/s3 X-Received: by 10.84.143.129 with SMTP id 1mr2871039plz.344.1502156082711; Mon, 07 Aug 2017 18:34:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.186.196 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 18:34:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20170808002331.f3g6l7yzhsq3vhxe@ltop.local> From: Christopher Li Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 21:34:41 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 7p64jQoARH-QSgGuCTfXg1rjCvo Message-ID: Subject: Re: Upcoming sparse release RC5 To: Luc Van Oostenryck Cc: Linux-Sparse Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:42 AM, Christopher Li wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Luc Van Oostenryck >> wrote: >>> If you don't mind, it would be nice if you could use the pull request >>> I sent here: http://marc.info/?l=linux-sparse&m=150188507213269&w=4 >>> (you never saw it because I copy-pasted "[PATCH v3]" in the title of >>> the cover page instead of using "[PATCH v4]" and so used the v3 and >>> corrected the s/list/__list/ by hand). >>> But it's not very important. >> >> I did not find that git pull url due to the V3 title. I did look for it. >> >> When I look at the patch, there is some compile error on one of the >> patch (patch 4?). I just fix it by hand. I assume the git pull has the >> same error because the patch are generated from git. >> >> I just checked, that compile error still on the git url you send out >> in the email. I still can't use it > > Are you sure? > in the link I pasted here above, the git branch is: > > git://github.com/lucvoo/sparse.git fix-nested-pseudo-users-deletion-v4 > > aka: bddf7d1e4ed81c3def7c6de2796a5489ca678399 Yes, see the git log -p bddf7d1e4ed81c3def7c6de2796a5489ca678399 commit bddf7d1e4ed81c3def7c6de2796a5489ca678399 (luc/fix-nested-pseudo-users-deletion-v4) Author: Luc Van Oostenryck Date: Fri Aug 4 21:50:20 2017 +0200 mark pseudo users as deleted instead of removing them This will fix the (rare) problems with deletion while doing nested ptrlist walking that occurs when doing recursive kill_instruction() - remove_usage() - kill_instruction() Signed-off-by: Luc Van Oostenryck + if (__list->rm && !ptr) \ continue; \ do { @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ static inline void *last_ptr_list(struct ptr_list *list) while (--__nr >= 0) { \ do { \ ptr = PTR_ENTRY(__list,__nr); \ - if (list->rm && !ptr) \ + if (__list->rm && !ptr) \ continue; \ do { That change is your later patch fixing the compile error in the previous patch. I have to move this change into the previous patch. >> Also, can you please give the pull request a dedicate branch, >> like "for-chris", not a tag? I don't want to pull from random branch >> and end up merging between your topic branches. > > It won't change anything, in both case it's just a name for something > (and using specific name for specific thing is a good thing I think) > but no problem, it's fine for me. You can still have your specific topic branch. I want a unified view to pull from you. It does change some thing. I find out that your like to just assign the tag to the topic branch you want me to pull from. The last "for-chris" tag might not be fast forwardable to the next "for-chris" tag. Think that "for-chris" as if your own luc-next. You can still maintain a lot of topic branches. You aggregate the stable enough bits as luc-next for others to try out. That is where I pull from, and I expect that to be fast forwardable from master. The difference will be, you will merge between your own branches before let me pull. I don't need to keep track of what is the updated version of different topic branches I have merged from you. Currently, rebase the sparse-next with your topic branch pulled is very tricky. I need to create a stable point for your aggregated topic branches. That is equivalent of the "for-chris" branch on my side. Then I rebase sparse-next on that. If you maintain that "for-chris" to aggregate your own topic branch. I can just use "for-chris" as a base to rease the sparse-next, I only need to rebase patches not from you. I do want to have the flexibility to rebase spase-next. It is just how to do it in a way impact you less. >> I often need to seek clarify if this patches series is mean for merge. >> If you make that in the dedicate pull branch, I will know for sure. Let me clarify that does not stop you from send out review with specific topic branch. I want a merged unified view from you to use as my base. Chris --- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html diff --git a/ptrlist.h b/ptrlist.h index 1839b0f..78625c8 100644 --- a/ptrlist.h +++ b/ptrlist.h @@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ static inline void *last_ptr_list(struct ptr_list *list) for (__nr = 0; __nr < __list->nr; __nr++) { \ do { \ ptr = PTR_ENTRY(__list,__nr); \ - if (list->rm && !ptr) \