On Mon, 2016-12-12 at 16:47 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Dec 2016, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 02:24:22PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Sun, 2016-12-11 at 00:07 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 12:54:50PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > diff -u -p drivers//dma/pxa_dma.c /tmp/nothing//dma/pxa_dma.c > > > > > --- drivers//dma/pxa_dma.c > > > > > +++ /tmp/nothing//dma/pxa_dma.c > > > > > @@ -640,9 +640,6 @@ static unsigned int clear_chan_irq(struc > > > > > dcsr = phy_readl_relaxed(phy, DCSR); > > > > > phy_writel(phy, dcsr, DCSR); > > > > > if ((dcsr & PXA_DCSR_BUSERR) && (phy->vchan)) > > > > > - dev_warn(&phy->vchan->vc.chan.dev->device, > > > > > - "%s(chan=%p): PXA_DCSR_BUSERR\n", > > > > > - __func__, &phy->vchan); > > > > > > > > That's not a defect. We're getting the address of vchan. I don't get > > > > it? > > > > > > $ git grep -n -w vchan drivers/dma/pxa* > > > drivers/dma/pxa_dma.c:103: struct pxad_chan *vchan; > > > > I'm not sure what you're saying here still. This code works as > > intended. We're not printing a stack address. > > I guess that the point is that one would like to print the channel, not > the address of the channel? Generally, printing the address of a pointer _can_ be useful, but it's likely a defect with a low false positive rate. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
