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

Date:   Thu, 13 Jun 2019 20:57:36 -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 Tue, May 14, 2019 at 07:54:04PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2019, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> > > 
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> Hmm... no it was not intentional.  Not sure what happened there.
> 
> I will pick it up for the -rcs.

Hi Lee,

Have you picked this up yet? I don't see it in -next or your public
tree.

Cheers,
Nathan