[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C62F01E.2000708@codeaurora.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:46:54 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: uaccess: Implement strict user copy checks
On 08/10/2010 08:04 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> Do you actually need to disable this if running an older gcc? AFAICT, it
> should just have no effect at all in that case, so the comment is slightly
> misleading.
I blindly copied the help text from x86. Will fix to be less misleading.
>
> Also, why turn this specific warning into an error but not any of the other
> warnings? Some architectures (alpha, sparc, mips, powerpc, sh) simply turn
> on -Werror for architecture specific code in general, which seems very
> useful. We can also make that a config option (probably arch independent)
> that we turn on for defconfig files that we know build without warnings.
>
> Unfortunately, there is a number of device drivers that have never been
> warning-free, so we can't just enable -Werror for all code.
>
I'm following the x86 implementation. I suppose it's done this way since
many drivers aren't warning free (as you mention) and turning on -Werror
will make it more annoying to find these types of errors. Since there
isn't any -Werror=user-copy this approach allows us to find this type of
error easily without having to sift through noise.
Enabling -Werror in architecture specific code wouldn't help much here
though right since this is going to be inlined into drivers and such?
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists