On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 09:11:52AM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > On 11 March 2015 at 08:54, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > When I see a patch like this, then I worry, "What if the Sparse > > annotations are wrong? The patch description doesn't say anything about > > that." After review then I think the annotations are correct so that's > > fine. > > How do you mean? I was careful to check what sparse was referring to, > then investigate how memset should be used with pointers with a > __iomem qualifier. I'd like to be able to improve my patch > descriptions going forward as best I can :) > Yes. The patch is correct. I wasn't asking you to redo it. From later patches it's actually clear that you know that this change is a bugfix and a behavior change. But we get a lot of patches where people just randomly change things to please Sparse and it maybe silences a warning but it's not correct. I can think of a few recentish examples where people used standard struct types which hold __iomem or __user pointers but they used them in non-standard ways so the pointers were actually normal kernel pointers. I guess the rule here is that the patch should explain the effect of the bugfix for the user. Often you won't know the effect, but it's a helpful thing to think about. > > Btw, do you have this hardware? Are you able to test these changes? > > Unfortunately not, I am trying to keep these changes as simple code > fixes that ought not to affect actual hardware behaviour as I can > (though of course you can never be entirely sure that's the case!) That's fine. I was just wondering. It affects how paranoid I am when I review the code. regards, dan carpenter _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
