On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 01:23PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 04:53:18PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote: > > One observation from the rebase: Generally synchronization primitives > > do not change much and the annotations are relatively stable, but e.g. > > RCU & sched (latter is optional and depends on the sched-enablement > > patch) receive disproportionally more changes, and while new > > annotations required for v6.19-rc1 were trivial, it does require > > compiling with a Clang version that does produce the warnings to > > notice. > > I have: > > Debian clang version 22.0.0 (++20251023025710+3f47a7be1ae6-1~exp5) > > I've not tried if that is new enough.
That's new enough - it's after https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/7ccb5c08f0685d4787f12c3224a72f0650c5865e which is the minimum required version. > > While Clang 22-dev is being tested on CI, I doubt maintainers already > > use it, so it's possible we'll see some late warnings due to missing > > annotations when things hit -next. This might be an acceptable churn > > cost, if we think the outcome is worthwhile. Things should get better > > when Clang 22 is released properly, but until then things might be a > > little bumpy if there are large changes across the core > > synchronization primitives. > > Yeah, we'll see how bad it gets, we can always disable it for > COMPILE_TEST or so for a while.
