linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/resctrl: Fix unneeded variable warning reported by kernel test robot

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: <a85f6896-cc7d-4cba-a5eb-96f20c901c57@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 16:12:24 -0800
From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: Babu Moger <babu.moger@....com>, <corbet@....net>, <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
	<tglx@...utronix.de>, <mingo@...hat.com>, <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	<x86@...nel.org>, <hpa@...or.com>, <paulmck@...nel.org>,
	<rdunlap@...radead.org>, <tj@...nel.org>, <peterz@...radead.org>,
	<yanjiewtw@...il.com>, <kim.phillips@....com>, <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
	<seanjc@...gle.com>, <jmattson@...gle.com>, <leitao@...ian.org>,
	<jpoimboe@...nel.org>, <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
	<kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, <jithu.joseph@...el.com>,
	<kai.huang@...el.com>, <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
	<daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com>, <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	<sandipan.das@....com>, <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
	<peternewman@...gle.com>, <maciej.wieczor-retman@...el.com>,
	<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/resctrl: Fix unneeded variable warning reported by
 kernel test robot

Hi Boris,

On 1/24/2024 3:34 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 03:03:15PM -0800, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> Since you are the one that decides the rules for inclusion you can make this
>> check to be one where checkpatch.pl can be ignored. No objection from me if
>> you choose to do so (and I will note the precedent for future patches).
> 
> Nah, that's not nearly as important for you to change your workflow.
> 
> What I'd suggest, though, is to sanity-check what checkpatch suggests and
> ask yourself whether it always makes sense.

Will do. Thank you for considering and discussing this detail. The final
patch you just merged looks good to me. Thank you very much for fixing this.

Reinette