linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mfd: stmfx: Fix macro definition spelling

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: <20190514183900.GA7559@archlinux-i9>
Date:   Tue, 14 May 2019 11:39:00 -0700
From:   Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:     Amelie Delaunay <amelie.delaunay@...com>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
        linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: stmfx: Fix macro definition spelling

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 08:30:59AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2019, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> 
> > Clang warns:
> > 
> > In file included from drivers/mfd/stmfx.c:13:
> > include/linux/mfd/stmfx.h:7:9: warning: 'MFD_STMFX_H' is used as a
> > header guard here, followed by #define of a different macro
> > [-Wheader-guard]
> > 
> > Fixes: 06252ade9156 ("mfd: Add ST Multi-Function eXpander (STMFX) core driver")
> > Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/475
> > Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/mfd/stmfx.h | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> Applied, thanks.
> 
> -- 
> Lee Jones [李琼斯]
> Linaro Services Technical Lead
> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
> Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

Hi Lee,

Thanks for picking it up. It seems this didn't make it into your MFD
pull request for 5.2, was that intentional? It would be nice to avoid
this warning.

Thanks,
Nathan