Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 7 Jun 2009 11:20:54 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] kmemcheck: make bitfield annotations be valid C |
| |
* Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 09:40:08AM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote: > > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com> wrote: > > > From bb8926742d87da95aeb373bc2d4b35a554c5001b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > From: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com> > > > Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 21:34:36 +0200 > > > Subject: [PATCH] kmemcheck: make bitfield annotations be valid C > > > > > > According to Al Viro, the syntax we were using (putting #ifdef inside > > > macro arguments) was not valid C. He also suggested using begin/end > > > markers instead, which is what we do now. > > > > > > Reported-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> > > > Signed-off-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com> > > > > Acked-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> > > > > Al, are you okay with this? > > Looks sane
Thanks.
This removes the blocker bug from kmemcheck and we can try to push it in the .31 merge window. Does the level and amount of bit-field annotations look unduly troublesome to you? If we merge kmemcheck then we'll have these type annotations forever.
Ingo
|  |