From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from out-226.mta1.migadu.com (out-226.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.226])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A961AD4C
	for <patches@lists.linux.dev>; Tue, 12 Sep 2023 19:36:48 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2023 15:36:42 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1;
	t=1694547406;
	h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject: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=zNCblYMtY7zlJoqjRoQyxe09ubNPwpC6FeW7lybTK0g=;
	b=mO8fi2Va4OlZtR+qKA2rT/4aY4TZDjq2SLK3JtORAn6hMauL7cUy+9fsqraknGUMcpNA1m
	sWcdhz/fzQNLRaRovoW8Cx4KjmS2fqjpWHzxsPBlbsLuwKEXHmm8BqGevTm/Wr58IchTdy
	a41EuDjn7pHlwhmnLBMXahy4vZjWbho=
X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers.
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
To: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Cc: bfoster@redhat.com, linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
	patches@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] bcachefs compiler warning fixes for 32-bit
Message-ID: <20230912193642.sdlwon4jta4ob5ac@moria.home.lan>
References: <20230912-bcachefs-warning-fixes-v1-0-a1cc83a38836@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List: patches@lists.linux.dev
List-Id: <patches.lists.linux.dev>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:patches+subscribe@lists.linux.dev>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:patches+unsubscribe@lists.linux.dev>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230912-bcachefs-warning-fixes-v1-0-a1cc83a38836@kernel.org>
X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT

On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 12:15:37PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> This is a series of fixes for warnings that I now see from bcachefs when
> building my test matrix with LLVM in -next, mostly from 32-bit
> architectures. Most of the patches should be uncontroversial; the
> min_t/max_t changes are probably the worst ones.

Those patches all look fine, thanks

> I still see several instances of -Wframe-larger-than when building for
> 32-bit ARM (I am sure they will show up on other 32-bit architectures as
> well), which I am not entirely sure how to tackle. It looks like the
> majority of the instances are just due to large structures on the stack
> in combination with some inlining resulting in some spills, so it seems
> like moving to a heap allocation for some of those would the right fix
> but I know some maintainers would rather fix them in their own way,
> hence just the report.

I just started seeing these again as well. The biggest single object
that most of them have on their stack is btree_trans, but initializing
that has to do a heap allocation for the btree_paths array - so we might
as well switch to heap allocating the entire thing.

That will help.