linux-kernel - Re: AHCI_SHT(), ATA_BASE_SHT() and .can

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:45:37 -0800
From:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To:	Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: AHCI_SHT(), ATA_BASE_SHT() and .can_queue

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 05:38:45PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Unfortunately sparse complains about that construct. It is annoying
> when checking e.g. drivers/scsi with sparse to see sparse complain
> many times about two different values being specified for .can_queue.
> Should the sparse authors remove that warning ?

I really don't know.  Maybe sparse can provide explicit annotation
(e.g. multiple initializers for this struct is okay)?  Maybe we can
just exclude duplicate initializer check on the few affected files.
Or, we can just keep ignoring them.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/