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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CAO+b5-r=e_7ereoWbV2bMh+nApk2zeE9=yk=2eGQRhhZZsJVPw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:38:45 +0000
From:	Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: AHCI_SHT(), ATA_BASE_SHT() and .can_queue

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 05:04:21PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> I guess the fact that can_queue is specified twice and with different
>> values in AHCI_SHT() was unintentional ?
>
> Yes, it is intentional.  The macros provide default values which
> specific drivers or downstream class of drivers may choose to
> override.

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 ?

Bart.
--
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/