From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83442C47089 for ; Wed, 26 May 2021 13:47:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1874761186 for ; Wed, 26 May 2021 13:47:27 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1874761186 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 9FFA66B0036; Wed, 26 May 2021 09:47:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 9D6556B006E; Wed, 26 May 2021 09:47:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 89E576B0070; Wed, 26 May 2021 09:47:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0199.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59C036B0036 for ; Wed, 26 May 2021 09:47:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin18.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D19873A97 for ; Wed, 26 May 2021 13:47:25 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78183509250.18.EB3D0EB Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by imf02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57F3A40B8CE4 for ; Wed, 26 May 2021 13:47:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1622036844; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=o16u/c8coPI8ohqxToTLSC216Jb3msCYJShNW2jzNPQ=; b=gdquVvf4IzJxh5H8A3GORdhnpqKAcutC5Zpz5TttR32N91mc+YSacvzCvzmYNktcwceM/3 fqKfdU2L4m71Sk/oiCJEhoqUy9lKh+RIvkk0bPhkWnjJDHyBVoghLO1M0ZwnR+d5tAfU6Q eN6VlIY7GVFoLJXi4QylIQm0po2p2Kw= Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 188C4B275; Wed, 26 May 2021 13:47:24 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 15:47:23 +0200 From: Petr Mladek To: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Stephen Boyd , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , linux-mm@kvack.org, Joe Perches Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] slub: Force on no_hash_pointers when slub_debug is enabled Message-ID: References: <20210526025625.601023-1-swboyd@chromium.org> <20210526025625.601023-5-swboyd@chromium.org> <555eaf8b-deb2-fa49-ddef-a74645848159@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <555eaf8b-deb2-fa49-ddef-a74645848159@suse.cz> Authentication-Results: imf02.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b=gdquVvf4; spf=pass (imf02.hostedemail.com: domain of pmladek@suse.com designates 195.135.220.15 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=pmladek@suse.com; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=suse.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 57F3A40B8CE4 X-Stat-Signature: nncb1zi9qt3dmgwgqfjmrertiuhx9438 X-HE-Tag: 1622036841-181102 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed 2021-05-26 12:48:47, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 5/26/21 4:56 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > Obscuring the pointers that slub shows when debugging makes for some > > confusing slub debug messages: > > > > Padding overwritten. 0x0000000079f0674a-0x000000000d4dce17 > > > > I opted for extern because I guess we don't want to advertise > > no_hash_pointers_enable() in some sort of header file? It can be put in > > a header file > > Hm looks like the bots disagree. I suppose a declaration right above definition > in lib/vsprintf.c would silence them, but I'll leave it to printk maintainers if > they would prefer that way or traditionally > include/linux/kernel.h I slightly prefer to put it into kernel.h. I expect that some more debugging facilities would want to enable this in the future. But I would accept even the "ugly" declaration in vsprintf.c. Best Regards, Petr