[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150107163617.190b5992@mschwide>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 16:36:17 +0100
From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
To: Chen Gang S <gang.chen@...rus.com.cn>
Cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>, linux390@...ibm.com,
holzheu@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390: include: timex: Use macro CLOCK_STORE_SIZE
instead of hard code number
On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 22:45:11 +0800
Chen Gang S <gang.chen@...rus.com.cn> wrote:
> On 01/05/2015 04:59 PM, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 11:44:04 +0800
> > Chen Gang <gang.chen@...rus.com.cn> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Thank you for your work.
> >>
> >> In honest, originally, I was not sure whether it would cause bug (do not
> >> know gcc would generic incorrect code for it). :-)
> >
> > Even if the code happened to be correct it does not matter. The intention
> > of the sizeof() has been to get to the correct 16, not 8. The fix is
> > fine as it is.
> >
>
> Excuse me, my English is not quite well, I am not quite sure about what
> you said (might misunderstand what you said), so I provide the related
> information below for confirmation, please check, thanks.
>
> sizeof(clk) is for a pointer, not for an array (for C language, it
> treats array parameter as a pointer), the related demo is below:
And your patch fixes this problem. My comment was in regard to the
impact of the original bug. As the typeof construct is used to
prevent the compiler from over-optimizing, the code can come out
correct even if the bug is present.
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
--
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