From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4A24FBE1 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 07:22:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=140.211.166.183 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1705908145; cv=none; b=HQOglzVo51SDMqYREOQfUWfK1vX24A2kPIfr10orPKBOnsp/hdqL8cXcGzRpbcoyq853ToJGNG6yG+hzpZaIc5YShSYo8pUjpPndxn3t6AmEmgzZ/LGnL/Jilm+9P5hMLrErTCdErJqCgSJyowBRSSmtyvJuXf8xLW1NfqeVsXI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1705908145; c=relaxed/simple; bh=A49K0uSqSpVZG7mRvjq9ompHMMjHM50PBXZ+uSC2ovM=; h=References:From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-reply-to:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=qMbNDri+4oXMnaybg2PJ4f7hW6PLUNGEHnFP4+HfIz+/djtBd1kysTT7LQIViq1d0BMufSHmyhle3cavxRAUXKlWu+I2fnXY2BlO+g+eL7sw+ZLgaGWrad9P9zaAKLQC6FAt/4eApPYamU1hHpJi4tVrdXgEyWvIFsTBoOs2kMY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gentoo.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gentoo.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=140.211.166.183 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gentoo.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gentoo.org References: <20231215013657.1995699-1-sam@gentoo.org> <20231215013657.1995699-2-sam@gentoo.org> <87v88k1yeq.fsf@gentoo.org> <877ck2x8uc.fsf@gentoo.org> User-agent: mu4e 1.10.8; emacs 30.0.50 From: Sam James To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Sam James , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Felix Janda Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] io: Assert we have a sensible off_t Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 07:22:13 +0000 Organization: Gentoo In-reply-to: Message-ID: <87zfwxx26s.fsf@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Christoph Hellwig writes: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 04:58:07AM +0000, Sam James wrote: >> >> - we don't really need this patch all >> >> - but cleaning up xfs_assert_largefile to just use static_assert would >> >> probably be nice to have anyway >> > >> > Thanks, I agree, but I think static_assert is C11 (and then it gets a >> > nicer name in C23). If it's still fine for us, I can then use it. >> > >> > Does it change your thinking at all or should I send a v4 with it >> > included? >> >> ping. I don't mind doing a followup, but I'd love to get this in given >> there's a bunch of other projects still to handle with this sort of >> problem. > > Well, we certainly should drop this patch from the series. Adding > a cleanup to switch the existing odd way of asserting the size to > static_assert would be nice, but I don't think is required. OK, sure. Thanks!