Re: [PATCH 1/3] Compiler Attributes: Add __assume macro

[Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 09:04:36PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 8:44 PM Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > I do not think anyone really owns compiler_types.h so unless Miguel has
> > any objections from the compiler attributes perspective, I think you can
> > just take this via the s390 tree with the other two changes.
> 
> No objections from me, and thanks for spotting the OpenMP thing above.
> 
> I would say, though, that this is a fairly general and subtle tool to
> have around, so it would be nice to have others chime in. In other
> words, do we want to start using `assume`s? Should we constrain its
> use a bit, e.g. say its use should really be justified etc.? (In the
> Rust side, a tool like this would require a SAFETY comment on top with
> a justification, which may give a developer pause).

I do think justification at the source level (i.e., a comment) would be
a good baseline. I thought I remember a similar discussion around
likely() / unlikely() annotations since those should have some evidence
of benefit behind it. Applying the same policy to __assume() usage would
help ensure there is sufficient justification for adding and maintaining
such annotations, especially if they turn out to cause problems later.
Not sure if there should be a format standard like exists for SAFETY
comments but something is better than nothing.

Cheers,
Nathan