linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bcache: Fix compiler warnings

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]

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 19:27:36 -0300
From: Marilene Andrade Garcia <marilene.agarcia@...il.com>
To: Coly Li <colyli@...e.de>, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Cc: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@...il.com>,
 linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bcache: Fix compiler warnings

On 05/06/2024 00:40, Marilene A Garcia wrote:
> It fixes the following compiler warnings by
> using "/*" instead of "/**" in the comments
> 
> drivers/md/bcache/request.c:309: warning:
> Function parameter or struct member 'bch_data_insert'
> not described in 'CLOSURE_CALLBACK'
> 
> drivers/md/bcache/request.c:309: warning: expecting
> prototype for bch_data_insert(). Prototype was for
> CLOSURE_CALLBACK() instead
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marilene A Garcia <marilene.agarcia@...il.com>
> ---
> Hello,
> These warnings happen using GCC compiler the command 'make W=1'.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
>   drivers/md/bcache/request.c | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/request.c b/drivers/md/bcache/request.c
> index af345dc6fde1..457b9605aff9 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/request.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/request.c
> @@ -285,7 +285,7 @@ static CLOSURE_CALLBACK(bch_data_insert_start)
>   	}
>   }
>   
> -/**
> +/*
>    * bch_data_insert - stick some data in the cache
>    * @cl: closure pointer.
>    *

Hello,
I have realized that even though this change could fix the warning, it 
is not the correct fix to it, because it breaks the format of kernel 
function comments.

So please discard the patch.
Thank you.