[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250317120447.4fa26083@jic23-huawei>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 12:04:47 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
Cc: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>, "Gustavo A. R. Silva"
<gustavoars@...nel.org>, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, Benson Leung
<bleung@...omium.org>, Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] iio: cros_ec: Avoid
-Wflex-array-member-not-at-end warning
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 15:10:38 +1030
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com> wrote:
> On 17/03/25 12:02, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 11:24:59AM +1030, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> >> static int cros_ec_get_host_cmd_version_mask(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev,
> >> u16 cmd_offset, u16 cmd, u32 *mask)
> >> {
> >> + DEFINE_RAW_FLEX(struct cros_ec_command, buf, data,
> >> + sizeof(struct ec_response_get_cmd_versions));
> >
> > max(sizeof(struct ec_params_get_cmd_versions),
> > sizeof(struct ec_response_get_cmd_versions))?
>
> I considered that, but DEFINE_RAW_FLEX() complains about it due to the
>
> _Static_assert(__builtin_constant_p(count), \
> "onstack flex array members require compile-time const count");
>
Maybe add an assert that you indeed have the larger of the two + a comment
on why it matters?
> --
> Gustavo
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists