linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] i2c: Use u8 type in i2c transfer calls

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]

Date:   Thu, 28 Jul 2022 07:26:00 -0700
From:   Jason Gerecke <killertofu@...il.com>
To:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa-dev@...g-engineering.com>
Cc:     linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, Ping Cheng <pinglinux@...il.com>,
        "Tobita, Tatsunosuke" <tatsunosuke.tobita@...om.com>,
        Jason Gerecke <jason.gerecke@...om.com>, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
        kbuild-all@...ts.01.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: Use u8 type in i2c transfer calls

On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 12:01 PM Jason Gerecke <killertofu@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 5:21 PM kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Jason,
> >
> > I love your patch! Yet something to improve:
> >
> > [auto build test ERROR on wsa/i2c/for-next]
> > [also build test ERROR on linus/master v5.19-rc7 next-20220718]
> > [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
> > And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
> > https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]
> >
> > url:
> > https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Jason-Gerecke/i2c-Use-u8-type-in-i2c-transfer-calls/20220718-233658
> > base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wsa/linux.git
> > i2c/for-next
> > config: hexagon-randconfig-r026-20220718
> > (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20220719/202207190634.ToyhlXSz-lkp@intel.com/config)
> > compiler: clang version 15.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project
> > d74b88c69dc2644bd0dc5d64e2d7413a0d4040e5)
> > reproduce (this is a W=1 build):
> >          wget
> > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross
> > -O ~/bin/make.cross
> >          chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross
> >          #
> > https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commit/9732240c23a365c0590f05ce83196869235a2ea7
> >          git remote add linux-review https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux
> >          git fetch --no-tags linux-review
> > Jason-Gerecke/i2c-Use-u8-type-in-i2c-transfer-calls/20220718-233658
> >          git checkout 9732240c23a365c0590f05ce83196869235a2ea7
> >          # save the config file
> >          mkdir build_dir && cp config build_dir/.config
> >          COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=clang make.cross W=1
> > O=build_dir ARCH=hexagon SHELL=/bin/bash drivers/iio/adc/
> >
> > If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag where applicable
> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> >
> > All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
> >
> > >> drivers/iio/adc/max1363.c:1645:12: error: incompatible function pointer types assigning to 'int (*)(const struct i2c_client *, const char *, int)' from 'int (const struct i2c_client *, const u8 *, int)' (aka 'int (const struct i2c_client *, const unsigned char *, int)') [-Werror,-Wincompatible-function-pointer-types]
> >                     st->send = i2c_master_send;
> >                              ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >> drivers/iio/adc/max1363.c:1646:12: error: incompatible function pointer types assigning to 'int (*)(const struct i2c_client *, char *, int)' from 'int (const struct i2c_client *, u8 *, int)' (aka 'int (const struct i2c_client *, unsigned char *, int)') [-Werror,-Wincompatible-function-pointer-types]
> >                     st->recv = i2c_master_recv;
> >                              ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >     2 errors generated.
>
> Wolfram and Jonathan,
>
> Writing a patch to fix the new warnings generated by my I2C patch is
> simple enough, but I'd like some help coordinating getting both
> patches landed. Should I wait for the I2C patch to land in "for-next"
> before sending the IIO fix, or would it be preferred to send the IIO
> fix right now so that both patches can be reviewed simultaneously?

It's been pretty quiet, so asking again for any thoughts on how to
best address this tangle...

Jason