linux-kernel - different xxx_bit() function prototypes in bitops for x86 vs generic

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1489079480.4533.12.camel@infinera.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Mar 2017 17:11:22 +0000
From:   Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@...inera.com>
To:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: different xxx_bit() function prototypes in bitops for x86 vs generic

Building virtualbox external kernel modules warns about different types, example:
include/asm-generic/bitops/le.h;
  set_bit_le(int nr, const void *addr)
vs
arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h:
  set_bit(long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)

This difference is causes complaints, changing 
  set_bit_le(int nr, const void *addr)
to
  set_bit_le(int nr, const unsigned long *addr)
makes the warnings go away for this function.

Should not these two be the same?