On Wed 10-05-17 01:46:03, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > You can add > > Something that's not clear to me when advised to add, should I be > uploading a v3 with your acked by? I think I got that wrong the last > time I asked (which was my first patch to Linux).
If there are no further changes to the patch/changelog then it is not necessary. The maintainer usually just grabs ackes and reviewed-bys from the list. > > But I still do not understand which part of the code is undefined and > > why. > > It's not immediately clear to me either, but it's super later here... I would really like to understand that... > > is this a bug in -Wunsequenced in Clang > > Possibly, I think I already found one earlier tonight. > > https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32985 this seems unrelated. I would try to report this and clarify in the llvm bugzilla. > Tomorrow, I'll try to cut down a test case to see if this is indeed a > compiler bug. Would you like me to change the commit message to call > this just a simple clean up, in the meantime? I would go with the following wording. " Clang and its -Wunsequenced emits a warning (PUT THE FULL WARNING HERE). While it is not clear to me whether the initialization code violates the specification (6.7.8 par 19 (ISO/IEC 9899) looks it disagrees) the code is quite confusing and worth cleaning up anyway. Fix this by reusing sc.gfp_mask rather than the updated input gfp_mask parameter. " -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
