linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 wireless-next 2/9] carl9170: remove unnecessary (void*) conversions

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: <f2e567f3-97ff-494a-b25c-b5d12652b034@kadam.mountain>
Date:   Fri, 29 Sep 2023 15:30:40 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To:     Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@...il.com>,
        Shiji Yang <yangshiji66@...com>
Cc:     Linux Wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Wu Yunchuan <yunchuan@...china.com>,
        Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@...cinc.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 wireless-next 2/9] carl9170: remove unnecessary
 (void*) conversions

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 03:26:17PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 09:23:26AM +0200, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> > I would like to take the chance to again point to this beauty:
> > <https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/TYAP286MB03154F9AAFD4C35BEEDE4A99BC4CA@TYAP286MB0315.JPNP286.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM/T/#mf1b8919a000fe661803c17073f48b3c410888541>
> > @Dan, @Jeff can you please comment on that too?
> 
> I don't know how Shiji Yang generated this warning.  The warning doesn't
> make sense and I don't see how the patch helps.  I tested with GCC (v12)
> and Clang (random from git) and neither one generates a warning.  What's
> the point of having all the struct members in a group when struct itself
> already forms a group?
> 
> #confused

Wait, all this was in the email thread from June but I didn't scroll
down beyond the end of the patch...  It was just a compiler bug in a
GCC dot release.

regards,
dan carpenter