linux-kernel - Re: [akpm-mm:mm-new 320/331] arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c:321:2: error: expected identifier

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

Message-ID: <6f8f3780-902b-49d4-a766-ea2e1a8f85ea@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 16:52:18 +0200
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
        Ignacio Moreno Gonzalez <Ignacio.MorenoGonzalez@...a.com>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>, oe-kbuild-all@...ts.linux.dev,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Yang Shi <yang@...amperecomputing.com>,
        Janosch Frank
 <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>, Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        pbonzini@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [akpm-mm:mm-new 320/331] arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c:321:2: error:
 expected identifier



Am 14.05.25 um 16:48 schrieb Claudio Imbrenda:

>>>>> A possible fix for this would be to rename PROT_NONE in the enum to PROT_TYPE_NONE.
>>>
>>> please write a patch to rename PROT_NONE in our enum to
>>> PROT_TYPE_DUMMY, I can review it quickly.
>>>
>>> if Paolo has no objections, I'm fine with having the patch go through
>>> the mm tree
>>
>> Yes, lets do a quick fix and I can also do
>> Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>
>>
>> for a s/PROT_NONE/PROT_TYPE_NONE/g
>> patch.
> 
> I'd rather have PROT_TYPE_DUMMY, since it's a dummy value and not
> something that indicates "no protection"

makes sense.