linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] clocksource: clint: Avoid remove __iomem in get_cycles

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: <mhng-b2cf0325-66e1-4e3c-bfbb-b393963fbb3f@palmerdabbelt-glaptop>
Date:   Wed, 23 Dec 2020 18:59:34 -0800 (PST)
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC:     linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
        lkp@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject:     Re: [PATCH] clocksource: clint: Avoid remove __iomem in get_cycles_hi()

On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 00:23:30 PST (-0800), Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 09:32:30PM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@...gle.com>
>>
>> This cast loses the __iomem qualifier from clint_timer_val, which
>> triggers an sparse warning.
>
> I'm not a native speaker, but the subject line sounds strange to me.
> Shouldn't this be:
>
> 	"don't cast away the __iommu annotation"
>
> or something similar?

The title is also nonsense, I was probably trying to do two things at once when
I wrote this.  I'll send another one.

> Also this adds an overly long line.  Otherwise it looks fine.

Aren't we OK with lines longer than 80 characters now?  Or was that some other
project?  checkpatch doesn't complain, which I guess is why I didn't notice, so
hopefully that means I'm not crazy (though I guess the commit message and title
don't provide the best argument there... ;)).