[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5791ab49-debf-53d6-f076-0e46c4f392ea@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2022 10:40:33 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: "Niedermayr, BENEDIKT" <benedikt.niedermayr@...mens.com>,
"rogerq@...nel.org" <rogerq@...nel.org>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: "gustavo@...eddedor.com" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
"tony@...mide.com" <tony@...mide.com>,
"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Coverity: gpmc_is_valid_waitpin(): Control flow issues
On 08/11/2022 09:15, Niedermayr, BENEDIKT wrote:
>>> Another alternative with less churn is to leave them as u32
>>> but make GPMC_WAITPIN_INVALID set to a large positive number.
>> Ok, I will fix that.
>> Do I need to send a new fix-patch on top the current patch series?
>> Or should I just send only the bugfix-patch for the coverity-bot?
>>
> Sorry, another Question:
> Is it somehow possible to check locally if the bugfix actually fixed the bug, before I submit the patch?
I think only if you have Coverity somewhere in your company set for
testing kernel...
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists