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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 21:35:44 +0300 From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> To: Andrey Utkin <andrey.krieger.utkin@...il.com> Cc: OSUOSL Drivers <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>, kernel-mentors@...r.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, noralf@...nnes.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] drivers/staging/fbtft: fix sparse warnings On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 07:06:44PM +0200, Andrey Utkin wrote: > 2015-02-21 20:58 GMT+02:00 Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>: > > Send two separate patches. You can't "fix" sparse warnings. You can > > only "fix" bugs. The rest is add annotation, doing cleanups or possibly > > silencing warnings. > > My first email wasn't a patch supposed for accepting, but rather a > request for comments, so I didn't bother with commit granularity, > separation of commit description and the description of my situation > with scissors marker etc. Sorry if this is rude or confusing. At least *try* to send proper patches. It is a waste of time to send half finished patches with lazy butt changelogs, yes. > > > >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c > >> index 9cc7d25..9114239 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c > >> +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c > >> @@ -273,7 +273,7 @@ construct_line_bitmap(struct fbtft_par *par, u8 *dest, signed short *src, > >> > >> static int write_vmem(struct fbtft_par *par, size_t offset, size_t len) > >> { > >> - u16 *vmem16 = (u16 *)par->info->screen_base; > >> + u16 __iomem *vmem16 = (u16 __iomem *)par->info->screen_base; > > > > I haven't looked. What is the type for ->screen_base and why can't it > > be declared as __iomem type? > > http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/include/linux/fb.h#L486 > screen_base is component of struct fb_info, defined as "char __iomem *". > In drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c, it looks to be actually set to > a pointer resulting from vzalloc(). Hm, you're right. Normally, it's an __iomem * but this time it's not an __iomem pointer. Adding anotations to mark it as __iomem is wrong and adding calls to ioread16() is buggy. There are a couple ways to make these warnings go away. The simplest is just to silence the warning with __force: u16 *vmem16 = (u16 __force *)par->info->screen_base; I'm not terribly familiar with this code. I don't know that this is the cleanest approach. We could also just leave the code alone for now and ignore the warning. regards, dan carpenter -- 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