linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] kunit: Add a macro to wrap a deferred action function

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: <CAKMK7uG-FH6iLpNpQ74xXPZoyGoDGvg+L99oCK3nFZT43o6GcA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Nov 2023 17:00:35 +0100
From:   Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
To:     Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
Cc:     David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, dlatypov@...gle.com,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
        Arthur Grillo <arthurgrillo@...eup.net>,
        Benjamin Berg <benjamin.berg@...el.com>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
        Emma Anholt <emma@...olt.net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
        Maíra Canal <mairacanal@...eup.net>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>,
        Richard Fitzgerald <rf@...nsource.cirrus.com>,
        Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] kunit: Add a macro to wrap a deferred action function

On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 at 16:51, Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 11 Nov 2023 04:08:26 +0800, David Gow wrote:
> > KUnit's deferred action API accepts a void(*)(void *) function pointer
> > which is called when the test is exited. However, we very frequently
> > want to use existing functions which accept a single pointer, but which
> > may not be of type void*. While this is probably dodgy enough to be on
> > the wrong side of the C standard, it's been often used for similar
> >
> > [ ... ]
>
> Reviewed-by: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>

Acked-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch> for merging through kunit
tree, since I guess that's the simplest way to land this.

Cheers!
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch