linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: gpib: Make static and reduce forward declarations

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: <Z5DJSQUkEsLuzcke@egonzo>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 11:32:41 +0100
From: Dave Penkler <dpenkler@...il.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: gpib: Make static and reduce forward
 declarations

On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 10:37:33AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 09:33:42PM +0100, Dave Penkler wrote:
> > Declaring the entry points as static caused a warning that the
> > serial_poll_status function of the agilent_82350b driver was
> > unused.
> > 
> > Add the entry point to the corresponding interface structure
> > initializations where it was missing.
> 
> ...
> 
> > @@ -842,6 +824,7 @@ static gpib_interface_t agilent_82350b_unaccel_interface = {
> >  	.primary_address = agilent_82350b_primary_address,
> >  	.secondary_address = agilent_82350b_secondary_address,
> >  	.serial_poll_response = agilent_82350b_serial_poll_response,
> > +	.serial_poll_status = agilent_82350b_serial_poll_status,
> >  	.t1_delay = agilent_82350b_t1_delay,
> >  	.return_to_local = agilent_82350b_return_to_local,
> >  };
> > @@ -869,12 +852,12 @@ static gpib_interface_t agilent_82350b_interface = {
> >  	.primary_address = agilent_82350b_primary_address,
> >  	.secondary_address = agilent_82350b_secondary_address,
> >  	.serial_poll_response = agilent_82350b_serial_poll_response,
> > +	.serial_poll_status = agilent_82350b_serial_poll_status,
> >  	.t1_delay = agilent_82350b_t1_delay,
> >  	.return_to_local = agilent_82350b_return_to_local,
> >  };
> 
> So what happened is that Sparse was complaining and you were cleaning
> up the code and you discovered this bug.  Fine.  But bug fixes need to
> be in their own commit, not hidden inside a giant cleanup patch.  They
> need to have a commit message.
> 
> Quite often it sucks to discover a bug like this because the bugs have
> to be fixed first before the cleanup.  We're a bit less strict on this
> in staging because realistically there are lots of bugs and lots of
> cleanups and they're going to get mixed together.  But other subsystems
> maintain a fixes branch and a new development branch and so bug fixes
> have to apply cleanly to the fixes branch.
> 
> So in that case you would need to save the diff of the cleanup.  Go back
> to the start.  Write the fix.  Apply the cleanup diff on the top.  Deal
> with any failed chunks.  What a headache!  I get that.  And you're from
> a gmail.com address so I don't even know if you're getting paid to deal
> with this crap...
> 
> Quite often it sucks but in this case, it's really easy.  Use
> `git citool`, highlight the bugfix lines, right click, add to commit
> write a commit message and done.  Make sure it still builds as a stand
> alone patch, though.  Quite often when I try to highlight and click on
> all the lines in a bugfix, I accidentally leave out essential pieces.
> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
> 
OK I will send a new patch set splitting the patch as you suggested.
Thanks,
-dave