[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2025072553-chevy-starter-565e@gregkh>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 10:58:05 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>,
Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
llvm@...ts.linux.dev, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.1.y] KVM: arm64: silence -Wuninitialized-const-pointer
warning
On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 06:15:28PM -0700, Justin Stitt wrote:
> A new warning in Clang 22 [1] complains that @clidr passed to
> get_clidr_el1() is an uninitialized const pointer. get_clidr_el1()
> doesn't really care since it casts away the const-ness anyways.
Is clang-22 somehow now a supported kernel for the 6.1.y tree? Last I
looked, Linus's tree doesn't even build properly for it, so why worry
about this one just yet?
> Silence the warning by initializing the struct.
Why not fix the compiler not to do this instead? We hate doing foolish
work-arounds for broken compilers.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists