linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: android: ashmem: Fixed a struct coding style issue

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: <2821664.e9J7NaK4W3@leap>
Date:   Sun, 20 Mar 2022 07:49:24 +0100
From:   "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
To:     "Ryan C. England" <rcengland@...il.com>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, arve@...roid.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        "Ryan C. England" <rcengland@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: android: ashmem: Fixed a struct coding style issue

On domenica 20 marzo 2022 04:33:37 CET Ryan C. England wrote:
> Fixed a coding style issue.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ryan C. England <rcengland@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/android/ashmem.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/ashmem.c b/drivers/staging/android/ashmem.c
> index ddbde3f8430e..f2bf7995b403 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/android/ashmem.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/android/ashmem.c
> @@ -377,7 +377,7 @@ ashmem_vmfile_get_unmapped_area(struct file *file, unsigned long addr,
>  
>  static int ashmem_mmap(struct file *file, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>  {
> -	static struct file_operations vmfile_fops;
> +	const struct file_operations vmfile_fops;
>  	struct ashmem_area *asma = file->private_data;
>  	int ret = 0;
>  
> -- 
> 2.27.0
> 
Hi Ryan,

Welcome to Linux development.

You are working on an old version of the staging tree. Please rebase to
the latest version of staging-next. drivers/android/ is not anymore here.

Aside from the above, what style issue were you trying to fix? Everything 
looks fine in the line that you changed,

Why did you decide to add the "const" qualifier to vmfile_fops? Do you 
know that since then the fields of vmfile_fops are not anymore assignable?
What should we do with an empty list of file operations?

Furthermore, why did you drop the "static" memory qualifier? Do you know
why it was (I suppose correctly) "static"?

Please don't ever forget to build your code before submitting patches.

Thanks,

Fabio M. De Francesco