[GIT PULL] uml-for-6.16-rc4

[Tiwei Bie]

On 2025/6/26 11:48, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 at 19:44, Tiwei Bie <tiwei.btw at antgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>> The behavior of gcc and clang differs. Clang's behavior appears to be
>> related to the volatile qualifier in arch_spinlock_t:
> 
> Ahh. That kind of makes sense.

I also just noticed it today after taking a closer look.

> 
> At the same time, I think clang is being stupid here. Yes, it makes
> sense to treat volatile specially in this way - just not for an
> initializer.
> 
> I realize that initializers can be made to be their own data
> structures in modern C (ie taking the address of an initializer and
> using the initializer itself as an argument to a function call, for
> example), but when an initializer is used to set the value of a
> variable, the only real thing there is that variable.

That makes sense!

> 
> Oh well. The patch certainly looks fine and I obviously already merged
> the pull request.

Yeah, I saw that. Thanks! :)

> It does make me go "I wonder how many other places
> clang just generates stupid code due to this".

+1.

Regards,
Tiwei