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>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 07 Oct 2021 23:55:23 +1100
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>, Kai Song <songkai01@...pur.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Cc:     Kai Song <songkai01@...pur.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        oohall@...il.com, paulus@...ba.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/eeh:Fix some mistakes in comments

Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net> writes:
> 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?
>
>>  /**
>> - * 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 But I don't know if an out of date comment is enough of a 'bug' to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!)

It depends. If you think it's important that the fix gets backported
then you should add the Fixes tag.

In this case I would say no. The comments have been broken for years,
and it's a pretty obscure API.

cheers