On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 09:21, Jean Delvare wrote: > > Here's the patch against 2.6.0-test4. Just to remind everyone, this > > patch doesn't fix any bugs (they're already fixed in 2.6.0-test3), it > > just makes the code pass our static analysis tool, cqual, without > > generating a warning. Since finding and fixing these bugs is so > > tricky, it seems worthwhile to have code which can be automatically > > verified to be bug-free (at least w.r.t. user/kernel pointers). > > That's what this patch is about. Let me know if you have any > > questions or comments. Thanks for everyone's help. > > If I read the patch correctly, this is basically a kind of reversal to > your original patch, before Sergey and I changed it? You're absolutely right. The patch is purely "aesthetic", in the sense that it gets the code to pass cqual without generating any warnings. I understand the code may seem slightly odd, but it can be _automatically_ verified to have no user/kernel bugs. That's its real advantage. Thanks for looking at the patch so carefully, and for your comments. Best, Rob
