[RFC PATCH 4/8] mm: Separate fault info out of 'struct vm_fault'

[Nick Desaulniers]

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 1:33 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds at linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 1:23 AM Will Deacon <will at kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hmm. The feedback on the clang bug suggests that GCC is the one in the
> > wrong here (although the argument is based on C11 and I haven't trawled
> > through the standards to see how this has evolved):
>
> Oh well.
>
> That writing is absolutely the _worst_ kind of weaselwording standards
> language reading, trying to make excuses for bad behavior by basically
> depending on "this language is unclear", and trying to say that the
> buggy behavior is required by C11.
>
> What a disappointment.

I don't really understand British humor either, but I assume that's
how the language lawyers throw shade on one anothers' standards.
Richard is both the WG21 spec editor (C++) and British, IIRC.
Apparently, there's a long conversion (behind closed doors; it's the
ISO way) going on in regards to the thread Richard has kicked off with
them (WG14; C).  Moreso on what should happen with the _Atomic
qualifier, assignments, and memcpy.  So it is still an important thing
to nail down the language spec.

Note there were also a lot of discussions lately on "where should the
volatile qualifier be allowed, or not."
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p1152r0.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJW_DLaVXIY
(2018? ok, maybe not lately.  Lately for C)

I view this similarly as "where should the const qualifier be allowed, or not."
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers