[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <685c772aa7cc1_23a2a10080@dwillia2-mobl4.notmuch>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 15:24:42 -0700
From: <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
<dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, "Gustavo A. R.
Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>
CC: Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>, Dave Jiang
<dave.jiang@...el.com>, Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki"
<rafael@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, <nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev>,
<linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3][next] acpi: nfit: intel: avoid multiple
-Wflex-array-member-not-at-end warnings
Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>
>
> On 25/06/25 15:08, dan.j.williams@...el.com wrote:
> > dan.j.williams@ wrote:
> >> Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> >> [..]
> >>>> I think it would be a pretty small and direct replacement:
> >>>>
> >>>> TRAILING_OVERLAP(struct nd_cmd_pkg, pkg, nd_payload,
> >>>> struct nd_intel_get_security_state cmd;
> >>>> ) nd_cmd = {
> >>>> ...
> >>>
> >>> Yes, this works. Hopefully, maintainers will comment on this and let us
> >>> know what they prefer. :)
> >>
> >> Hey Gustavo, apologies for the latency here. I think TRAILING_OVERLAP()
> >> looks lovely for this if only because I can read that and have an idea
> >> what it means vs wondering what this _offset_to_fam is about and needing
> >> to read the comment.
> >>
> >> If you can get me that patch on top of the TRAILING_OVERLAP() branch I
> >> can test it out and ack it to let it do in through the KSPP tree.
> >
> > Just to move this along, I gave this conversion a try and all looks good
> > here. So feel free to fold this in and add:
> >
> > Acked-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
> > Tested-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
> >
> > ...and take it through the KSPP tree with the TRAILING_OVERLAP() merge.
>
> Thank you, Dan! :)
Uh oh, I spoke too soon. I saw most of the tests pass when I sent that
mail, but the firmware-update.sh regresses. It passes on vanilla
v6.16-rc3 and fails with both the original open-coded _offset_to_fam[]
approach and TRAILING_OVERLAP() conversion.
Let me try to get some more debug info.
The test is:
meson test -C build firmware-update.sh
...from the ndctl project:
https://github.com/pmem/ndctl
Powered by blists - more mailing lists