linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH, once again] regulator: core: avoid unused variable warning

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20151120122400.GA1929@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:24:00 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, once again] regulator: core: avoid unused variable
 warning

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 01:12:00PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 20 November 2015 11:41:27 Mark Brown wrote:

> > Can we please at least have a comment explaining that this is working
> > around lockdep limitations?

> Not sure which limitation you are referring to. Maybe you could just
> modify the changelog text as you like when applying the patch?

> I tried to capture the fact that mutex_lock_nested() intentionally
> doesn't evaluate its second argument when CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> is not set, but that appears to be less of a limitation than a
> choice of the interface.

That's the limitation (or intereface choice or whatever) that I'm
talking about - the code looks like a function call so not evaulating
the second argument is surprising.  I'm looking for something in the
code rather than the changelog so it doesn't get cleaned up later.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)