From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luc Van Oostenryck Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] be more generous with ptrlist repacking Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 13:26:03 +0100 Message-ID: <20161118122602.GA476@macbook.local> References: <20161117172559.29417-1-luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> <20161117202523.GA35194@macpro.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:33713 "EHLO mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752307AbcKRM0L (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Nov 2016 07:26:11 -0500 Received: by mail-wm0-f65.google.com with SMTP id u144so5710386wmu.0 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 04:26:10 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161117202523.GA35194@macpro.local> Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Sparse Mailing-list , Christopher Li , Dan Carpenter On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 09:25:24PM +0100, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: > Would something like the following be fine? > ... > I've quickly checked it on the testsuite (and it seems to pass ;). > I'll validate this more thoroughly but I won't be able to do this > just now. OK, I've run it on a much bigger set: a make C=2 kernel with allyesconfig, the same tree as the test I did previously and it gives me the same result and, of course, no crashes. So for me the changes are OK. Tested-by: Luc Van Oostenryck