[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231129121259.47746996@eldfell>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 12:12:59 +0200
From: Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@...il.com>
To: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
Emma Anholt <emma@...olt.net>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>,
Sandy Huang <hjc@...k-chips.com>,
Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/45] drm/connector: Check drm_connector_init
pointers arguments
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 15:49:08 +0200
Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> Should we perhaps start to use the (arguably hideous)
> - void f(struct foo *bar)
> + void f(struct foo bar[static 1])
> syntax to tell the compiler we don't accept NULL pointers?
>
> Hmm. Apparently that has the same problem as using any
> other kind of array syntax in the prototype. That is,
> the compiler demands to know the definition of 'struct foo'
> even though we're passing in effectively a pointer. Sigh.
__attribute__((nonnull)) ?
Thanks,
pq
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists