linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 3/5] net: pcs: qcom-ipq9574: Add PCS instantiation and phylink operations

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: <45d3eda0-7a2f-4ba3-9646-1f0e4b4f8943@quicinc.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 16:20:09 +0800
From: Lei Wei <quic_leiwei@...cinc.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
CC: Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
        "David S. Miller"
	<davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni
	<pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski
	<krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Andrew Lunn
	<andrew@...n.ch>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Russell King
	<linux@...linux.org.uk>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <quic_kkumarcs@...cinc.com>,
        <quic_suruchia@...cinc.com>, <quic_pavir@...cinc.com>,
        <quic_linchen@...cinc.com>, <quic_luoj@...cinc.com>,
        <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>, <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>,
        <vsmuthu@....qualcomm.com>, <john@...ozen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 3/5] net: pcs: qcom-ipq9574: Add PCS
 instantiation and phylink operations



On 1/11/2025 8:32 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 10:52:52 +0000 Simon Horman wrote:
>> I don't think there is a need to update the code just to make Smatch happy.
>> Only if there is a real problem. Which, with the discussion at the link
>> above in mind, does not seem to be the case here.
> 
> Maybe be good to add a one line comment in the code to make it clear
> this is intentional. Chances are we'll get a semi-automated "fixes"
> for this before long.

Sure, I will add the comment to make it clear.