From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53CDD1A5B89; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 08:52:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.10 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742979178; cv=none; b=o7LIGblIS40ImG8NlJ7WNRaOmqRD8kgFxk8WWGUsL0H3H/hueDmEeNKWji0Y0Ga7LAYOHR44j3nMg1zM+Jx87NEKm2BL3JhhCDkcclWVxLc3PV9pLoti5wuGAQEdtXP8UhuTdZTfzeclYiKFIV8mO/BwUNPI+s+W/HNsjANnX+M= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742979178; c=relaxed/simple; bh=4Z5hnXyKGxwJVzj/t4uzLnMmUwZAsEXEHL1U6aPZaQo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=F44bxY0BH5gSsXAkzono662yQKJvf1ayZgk89HP+nuYXtaTNA8Eiq7OFkOzt86rb2DEHHJr552+EZYD0/68weRlmgbBn06tzSPGJuCdo6pZpUwvwySA4il6ueR4GXkVgYimSD+kXso0yaR+/udemRiMCeYW3Tpc/Q6YTpjkJGFk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=kernel.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.10 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: p5heYQMpS3OXTplfbcaDVQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 0PRjaD2uRjGZf2oDnDSzsw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11384"; a="61645906" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.14,277,1736841600"; d="scan'208";a="61645906" Received: from orviesa002.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.142]) by orvoesa102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 Mar 2025 01:52:57 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: PGr3WgVxRoywJoT/29DqJQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: DnwamAxJQ6yLd0JN+RMaBw== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.14,277,1736841600"; d="scan'208";a="155589152" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.58]) by orviesa002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 Mar 2025 01:52:54 -0700 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.98) (envelope-from ) id 1txMVH-000000061As-34iy; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 10:52:51 +0200 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 10:52:51 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Nathan Chancellor Cc: Kees Cook , Nick Desaulniers , Bill Wendling , Justin Stitt , Ard Biesheuvel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] wcslen() prototype in string.h Message-ID: References: <20250325-string-add-wcslen-for-llvm-opt-v1-0-b8f1e2c17888@kernel.org> <20250325-string-add-wcslen-for-llvm-opt-v1-2-b8f1e2c17888@kernel.org> <20250325165847.GA2603000@ax162> <20250325214516.GA672870@ax162> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250325214516.GA672870@ax162> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 02:45:16PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 07:05:28PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 09:58:47AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 06:17:34PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 08:45:19AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote: ... > > > > > Rename the efi function to avoid the conflict. > > > > > > > > Hmm... Why not split this to two, rename patch as a standalone makes sense to > > > > me even outside of this series. > > > > > > How so? If nls.h is not included in printk.c via string.h, which does > > > not happen without this series, what value does the rename have? I do > > > not mind splitting it up that way to keep things cleaner, I am just > > > wondering what would be the justification in the changelog (I guess just > > > that nls.h may get included in the future for some reason)? > > > > Inside this series the justification is obvious (a.k.a. the same), outside > > yes something like "Put EFI specific function to the respective namespace > > to avoid potential clash in the future when including another header." > > Okay, sounds reasonable to me. This is what I ended up with for that > change, which will become patch one of the series. LGTM. However, now I'm thinking about nls.h appearing in the string.h. The former actually lacks two headers in it: module.h and types.h. I'm wondering if fixing nls.h would be even possible after your series. > with basically the same changelog. > > I will send v2 either tomorrow afternoon or Thursday morning to give a > little more time for initial review/comments. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko