linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH v2] x86/apic: Use u32 instead of unsigned long

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]

Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 08:12:48 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Thorsten Blum <thorsten.blum@...lux.com>
Cc: David.Laight@...LAB.COM, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
 hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
 peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, wei.liu@...nel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v2] x86/apic: Use u32 instead of unsigned long

On 3/8/24 04:43, Thorsten Blum wrote:
> Improve types by using u32 instead of unsigned long. Fixes two
> Coccinelle/coccicheck warnings reported by do_div.cocci.

This seems simple enough, but the changelog and subject are really
lacking in substantive information.

The _patch_ literally does a few s/unsigned long/u32/ operations, and
that's just repeated pretty much verbatim in the changelog and subject.
So it just tells me two more times what I already know.

Without going and running do_div.cocci I can't tell whether the warnings
are good checks or nonsense.  I also don't know _which_ do_div()s the
warnings even refer to.

Could we get a _little_ more meat in here, please?