[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5e64a055-a388-cac7-ad0d-7b50619b3e3f@embeddedor.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 09:53:05 -0500
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: remaining flexible-array conversions
On 4/23/20 14:15, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:23 AM Gustavo A. R. Silva
> <gustavo@...eddedor.com> wrote:
>>
>> Just wanted to ask you if you would agree on pulling the remaining
>> flexible-array conversions all at once, after they bake for a couple
>> of weeks in linux-next[1]
>>
>> This is not a disruptive change and there are no code generation
>> differences.
>
> The "no code generation differnces" is a good thing, but how was that
> tested? I assume just one configuration or architecture?
>
That's correct. I used pahole to test it (x86_64, allyesconfig). I will
test other archs (arm, arm64, powerpc, mips, etc...).
> Also, it bothers me a bit that some of the diff is unrelated
> whitespace cleanup. I'd actually be happier with a pure scripted patch
> (maybe coccinelle, maybe something else), than something that looks
> like it's at least partly manual. In particular, if I can re-create
> the diff with a script, I'd not have to worry about verifying it other
> ways..
>
Yeah. I fixed up some "tabs and spaces" checkpatch warnings --I can omit
this step in the future. I also had to drop changes from files that were
causing warnings --with the idea of fixing those warnings later, after
landing all the "non-problematic" conversions, first. I will generate
an ad-hoc bash script for this and will send it to you.
Thanks
--
Gustavo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists