linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] nfit: Use init_completion() in acpi_nfit_flush

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]

Date:   Thu, 24 Aug 2017 15:46:26 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, willy@...radead.org,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, kernel-team@....com,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] nfit: Use init_completion() in acpi_nfit_flush_probe()

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 03:07:42PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Boqun Feng wrote:
>>
>> > There is no need to use COMPLETION_INITIALIZER_ONSTACK() in
>> > acpi_nfit_flush_probe(), replace it with init_completion().
>>
>> You completely fail to explain WHY.
>>
>
> I thought COMPLETION_INITIALIZER_ONSTACK() should only use in assigment
> or compound literals, so the usage here is obviously wrong, but seems
> I was wrong?
>
> Ingo,
>
> Is the usage of COMPLETION_INITIALIZER_ONSTACK() correct? If not,
> I could rephrase my commit log saying this is a fix for wrong usage of
> COMPLETION_INITIALIZER_ONSTACK(), otherwise, I will rewrite the commit
> indicating this patch is a necessary dependency for patch #2. Thanks!

I think your patch is correct, but your changelog text is useless, as
Thomas mentioned: you should instead explain that it breaks with the
other fix in the series, and what the difference between init_completion()
and COMPLETION_INITIALIZER_ONSTACK() is.

      Arnd