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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAM0EoM=f9qGmTR5jW1vayu0JHy0MQjrOeREX6acjnS7MFQP7Ww@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 11:56:15 -0400 From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, anjali.singhai@...el.com, namrata.limaye@...el.com, deb.chatterjee@...el.com, john.andy.fingerhut@...el.com, dan.daly@...el.com, Vipin.Jain@....com, tom@...anda.io, mleitner@...hat.com, Mahesh.Shirshyad@....com, tomasz.osinski@...el.com, jiri@...nulli.us, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com, vladbu@...dia.com, horms@...nel.org, khalidm@...dia.com, toke@...hat.com, mattyk@...dia.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 00/18] Introducing P4TC On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 11:40 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 11:27:36 -0400 Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > > > patch-by-patch W=1 C=1 should be good enough to catch the problems. > > > > Thanks - this helps. We didnt pay good attention to > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst > > Only thing that is missing now is the mention of C=1 in the doc. Patch > > to the doc acceptable? > > Also a note about false positives in sparse output (there were a few > > in the warnings from the bot) would be apropos. > > Um. Maybe.. Sparse generates more false positives than good warnings > lately :( We'd have to add some extra info like "Note that sparse > is known to generate false-positive warnings, if you think that the > warning generated with C=1 is bogus, ignore it and note that fact > in the commit message". > > I don't like documenting things which aren't clear-cut :( Upto you - couldnt sum up from above if you want a patch or not. I think it makes sense to document C=1 somewhere since it helps your overhead. But the comment Similar in spirit to the checkpatch comment if - "But do not be mindlessly robotic in doing so..." > I'm pretty sure you have pure W=1 warnings here, too. True - I am not sure how we missed one with function not used. cheers, jamal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists