linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] ARM: imx legacy: cleanups

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:   Sat, 13 Apr 2019 00:58:10 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...dl.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Janusz Krzysztofik <jmkrzyszt@...il.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] ARM: imx legacy: cleanups

On Sat, 2019-04-13 at 09:14 +0200, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> While preparing a proposed fix for a missing check on zmalloc a few
> other checkpatch warnings poped up - this little set fixes those
> warnings. There is one remaining checkpatch warning but that looks
> like a false-positive to me:
> 
> ERROR: Use of __initconst requires a separate use of const
> #171: FILE: arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-mx27ads.c:171:
> +mx27ads_nand_board_info __initconst = {
> 
> The false positive seems due to the definition spanning two lines
> anyway looks good to me
> 
> <snip>
> static const struct mxc_nand_platform_data
> mx27ads_nand_board_info __initconst = {
>         .width = 1,
>         .hw_ecc = 1,
> };

Yeah, it's a false positive.

You could use

static const __initconst etc...

if you really wanted to avoid this but feel free
to ignore checkpatch anyway when it's dumb.