linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 14/14] [media] fix warning on v4l2_subdev

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: <CAK8P3a1ckDk2VEhK9EWXU7ZWqh1UoZVMac9j3-1KGioj8EE+kw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Jul 2017 21:32:25 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>,
        Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Daeseok Youn <daeseok.youn@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        adi-buildroot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        IDE-ML <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
        Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund@...natech.se>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/14] [media] fix warning on v4l2_subdev_call() result
 interpreted as bool

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 03:55:26PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> I don't agree with it as a static analysis dev...
>
> What I mean is if it's a macro that returns -ENODEV or a function that
> returns -ENODEV, they should both be treated the same.  The other
> warnings this check prints are quite clever.

I think this is what gcc tries to do, and it should work normally, but it
fails when using ccache. I know I had cases like that, not entirely sure
if this is one of them. Maybe it just means I should give up on using
ccache in preprocessor mode.

       Arnd