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]
Message-ID: <db2fdc22-44b8-1e81-ace2-c83c143ac20e@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Sep 2022 08:59:33 +0700
From:   Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
To:     Kumaravel.Thiagarajan@...rochip.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com, arnd@...db.de,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH char-misc-next] misc: microchip: pci1xxxx: use
 DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS() in place of the SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS() in pci1xxxx's
 gpio driver

On 9/14/22 01:27, Kumaravel.Thiagarajan@...rochip.com wrote:
>> On 9/12/22 18:36, Kumaravel Thiagarajan wrote:
>>> build errors listed below and reported for the builds of riscv, s390,
>>> csky, alpha and loongarch allmodconfig are fixed in this patch.
>>>
>>> drivers/misc/mchp_pci1xxxx/mchp_pci1xxxx_gpio.c:311:12: error:
>> 'pci1xxxx_gpio_resume' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
>>>   311 | static int pci1xxxx_gpio_resume(struct device *dev)
>>>       |            ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> drivers/misc/mchp_pci1xxxx/mchp_pci1xxxx_gpio.c:295:12: error:
>> 'pci1xxxx_gpio_suspend' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
>>>   295 | static int pci1xxxx_gpio_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>>       |            ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>
>> What about this description?:
>>
>> "Sudip reported unused function errors on riscv, s390, cksy, alpha, and
>> loongarch (allmodconfig):
>> <pci1xxxx_gpio_* errors>...
>>
>> Fix these errors by using DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS."
> It looks good even though it does not include all the details.
> But is not how much of detail good enough subjective?
> I thought some might be looking for more information and chose this way.
> Do you think I need to change this? Please let me know.

Yes, with full error text as Sudip had reported.

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ