linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] staging/vchi: Fix build warnings when formatting pointers on aarch64.

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: <20161018064119.GC7796@kroah.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Oct 2016 08:41:19 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>
Cc:     linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
        Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
        Dom Cobley <popcornmix@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] staging/vchi: Fix build warnings when formatting
 pointers on aarch64.

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 04:38:20PM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 12:44:03PM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
> >> The code was generally using "%x" to print and "(unsigned int)" to
> >> cast the pointers, but we have %p for printing pointers in the same
> >> format without any broken casts.
> >
> > I already did this work, it's all checked into my tree, and is in
> > linux-next now.  You were cc:ed on the patches as well.
> 
> I actually haven't seen any of those messages about the patches.  It
> looks like it's actually that notmuch is still failing to parse some
> mails (they apparently disagree with postfix on how maildir files should
> be formatted, so they just drop some mail on the floor).
> 
> I did check the staging-testing branch before I started, since that's
> where things were last I knew, and didn't know it had moved to -next.

But staging-testing has those fixes in it (it gets pulled into -next).
So I don't see how we got out of sync here...

thanks,

greg k-h