[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aHDVzKnJ2Yb6kmAC@finisterre.sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:13:48 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Sebastian Ott <sebott@...hat.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: fix u64_replace_bits() usage
On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 09:53:41AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> > Yes, as far as I can tell, the warning only showed up in linux-next
> > after f66f9c3d09c1 ("bitfield: Ensure the return values of helper
> > functions are checked").
> > As far as I can tell, Ben added the check in linux/bitfield.h
> > when he sent you his version of the fix, they just ended up
> > in linux-next in the wrong order, so I ended up recreating his
> > original fix slightly differently.
> I don't think Ben's fix is in -next, as I queued it in the kvmarm
> fixes branch, which isn't pulled by -next.
We should really get that added to -next, that'll ensure it gets covered
in the pending-fixes testing coverage and avoid issues like this with
the main -next tree.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists