[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6059647.tYvRSTXOxn@wuerfel>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 23:36:51 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
Макс Жуков
<mussitantesmortem@...il.com>, nicolas.ferre@...el.com,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
robert.jarzmik@...e.fr, yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Bob Peterson <rpeterso@...hat.com>,
Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] kbuild updates for v4.7-rc1
On Friday, May 27, 2016 1:20:29 PM CEST Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> >
> > In fact, the patch that I have in my private tree that was hiding the
> > warning for me on x86 is one that removes all instances of IS_ERR_VALUE()
> > with arguments other than 'unsigned long', see http://pastebin.com/uYa2mkgC
> > for reference.
>
> Please just send me that patch, we need to do this (and then add a
> cast to pointer (and back to unsigned long) in IS_ERR_VALUE() so that
> we get warnings for when that macro is mis-used.
Ok, I've tried to come up with a summary of what happened so far
on this, and sent the patch your way, leaving out the modified
IS_ERR_VALUE() definition for the moment.
I've added the people on Cc whose drivers had the most invasive
changes.
> I didn't look at the details of your patch, but I did look at several
> IS_ERR_VALUE() uses in the standard kernel, and they were basically
> all wrong.
Yes, that matches what we found earlier this year when Andrzej Hajda
did some work on fixing the worst problems he found.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists