linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] gpiolib: cdev: use !mem_is_zero() instead of memchr

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240905131950.GA191863@rigel>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 21:19:50 +0800
From: Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] gpiolib: cdev: use !mem_is_zero() instead of
 memchr_inv(s, 0, n)

On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 03:04:34PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 3:01 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 09:36:20AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 04 Sep 2024 12:07:43 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > Use the mem_is_zero() helper where possible.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Applied, thanks!
> > >
> > > [1/1] gpiolib: cdev: use !mem_is_zero() instead of memchr_inv(s, 0, n)
> > >       commit: b1da870ba36b3f525aee9be35b2f08a1feec61a7
> > >
> >
> > As per my other mail, mem_is_zero() is not defined in gpio/for-next yet.
> > So how does this work?
> >
> > If I build for-next I get:
> >
> > drivers/gpio/gpiolib-cdev.c: In function ‘gpio_v2_line_config_validate’:
> > drivers/gpio/gpiolib-cdev.c:1334:14: error: implicit declaration of function ‘mem_is_zero’; did you mean ‘xa_is_zero’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >  1334 |         if (!mem_is_zero(lc->padding, sizeof(lc->padding)))
> >       |              ^~~~~~~~~~~
> >       |              xa_is_zero
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Kent.
>
> Ah, it'll have to wait until the next release cycle then. Sorry for
> vacuuming patches too eagerly today. Dropping it.
>

My bad for not being clearer in my initial mail - that was why I acked
rather than giving it a Rb - it still needs you to work out how to deal
with the other patch that it requires.

Well that and I would flip the sense of the function but, assuming that
ship has sailed, that is just grumbling.

Cheers,
Kent.