linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] drivers/base/node.c: make CACHE_ATTR define static DEVICE_ATTR

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]

Message-ID: <YJ0usxH4Li+fPRUf@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 May 2021 15:50:43 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Gong Ruiqi <gongruiqi1@...wei.com>
Cc:     Wang Weiyang <wangweiyang2@...wei.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] drivers/base/node.c: make CACHE_ATTR define static
 DEVICE_ATTR_RO

On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 09:22:44PM +0800, Gong Ruiqi wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2021/05/13 19:26, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 07:07:16PM +0800, Ruiqi Gong wrote:
> > > The Sparse tool reports as follows:
> > > 
> > > drivers/base/node.c:239:1: warning:
> > >   symbol 'dev_attr_line_size' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > > drivers/base/node.c:240:1: warning:
> > >   symbol 'dev_attr_indexing' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > > 
> > > These symbols (and several others) are defined by DEVICE_ATTR_RO(name) in
> > > CACHE_ATTR(name, fmt), and all of them are not used outside of node.c. So let's
> > > mark DEVICE_ATTR_RO(name) static to solve these complains from Sparse.
> > 
> > Why not fix them all at once?  Why only one here?
> 
> Sorry for not making it clear enough. Actually the patch does fix them all.
> Those symbols reported by Sparse are generated when two of the following
> macros are expanded:
> 
>     CACHE_ATTR(size, "%llu")
>     CACHE_ATTR(line_size, "%u")
>     CACHE_ATTR(indexing, "%u")
>     CACHE_ATTR(write_policy, "%u")
> 
> So one fix of the CACHE_ATTR's definition fixs them all.

Ok, can you please rewrite the changelog text to make it more clear?

thanks,

greg k-h