Re: [PATCH] kmemcheck: make bitfield annotations be valid C

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> wrote:

> On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 09:40:08AM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > From bb8926742d87da95aeb373bc2d4b35a554c5001b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > From: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>
> > > Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 21:34:36 +0200
> > > Subject: [PATCH] kmemcheck: make bitfield annotations be valid C
> > >
> > > According to Al Viro, the syntax we were using (putting #ifdef inside
> > > macro arguments) was not valid C. He also suggested using begin/end
> > > markers instead, which is what we do now.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> > > Signed-off-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>
> > 
> > Acked-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
> > 
> > Al, are you okay with this?
> 
> Looks sane

Thanks.

This removes the blocker bug from kmemcheck and we can try to push 
it in the .31 merge window. Does the level and amount of bit-field 
annotations look unduly troublesome to you? If we merge kmemcheck 
then we'll have these type annotations forever.

	Ingo