linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] powerpc/eeh:Fix some mistakes in comments

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

Message-ID: <1423aa2e2ae343ffa487b4e34a815a51@inspur.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Oct 2021 01:36:36 +0000
From:   Harris song (宋凯)-浪潮信息 
        <songkai01@...pur.com>
To:     "dja@...ens.net" <dja@...ens.net>,
        "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "oohall@...il.com" <oohall@...il.com>,
        "paulus@...ba.org" <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/eeh:Fix some mistakes in comments

Hi Daniel,

> Hi Kai,
>
> Thank you for your contribution to the powerpc kernel!
>
> > Get rid of warning:
> > arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c:774: warning: expecting prototype for
> > eeh_set_pe_freset(). Prototype was for eeh_set_dev_freset() instead
>
> You haven't said where this warning is from. I thought it might be from sparse
> but I couldn't seem to reproduce it - is my version of sparse too old or are you
> using a different tool?

We can get this warning when building kernel with 'W=1' .
You can refer to this:  https://lwn.net/Articles/683476/
or this: https://lwn.net/Articles/440060/

> >  /**
> > - * eeh_set_pe_freset - Check the required reset for the indicated
> > device
> > - * @data: EEH device
> > + * eeh_set_dev_freset - Check the required reset for the indicated
> > + device
> > + * @edev: EEH device
> >   * @flag: return value
> >   *
> >   * Each device might have its preferred reset type: fundamental or
>
> This looks like a good and correct change.
>
> I checked through git history with git blame to see when the function was
> renamed. There are 2 commits that should have updated the comment:
> one renamed the function and one renamed an argument. So, I think this
> commit could have:
>
> Fixes: d6c4932fbf24 ("powerpc/eeh: Strengthen types of eeh traversal
> functions")
> Fixes: c270a24c59bd ("powerpc/eeh: Do reset based on PE")
>
> But I don't know if an out of date comment is enough of a 'bug' to justify a
> Fixes: tag? (mpe, I'm sure I've asked this before, sorry!)
>
> All up, this is a good correction to the comment.
>
> There are a few other functions in the file that have incorrect
> docstrings:
>
>  - eeh_pci_enable - missing parameter
>
>  - eeh_pe_reset and eeh_pe_reset_full - missing parameter
>
>  - eeh_init - missing parameter
>
>  - eeh_pe_inject_err - wrong name for a parameter
>
> Could you fix all of the docstrings in the file at once?

In fact, there  are other warnings in this file, I will fix them and send a
new patch soon.

Kind regards,
Kai