From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mout-p-201.mailbox.org (mout-p-201.mailbox.org [80.241.56.171]) (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 DA6393009EC; Tue, 30 Dec 2025 08:09:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=80.241.56.171 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767082158; cv=none; b=Ah2TNJnIVjI+5AntibnKRr6muaSXlghNblLmQVtkZWJBa3mB3HuDzbUz8F4xAbC2RoKJ1bLYzH443GWXpjviWZko09rolnqqTCOXsC5+pYZqkMXsqEFtN9Ai+fFgQU1NDQTcnXDnVl7EzB1CR6cM4GjaWbNwInmIKMTr+YyF7QI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767082158; c=relaxed/simple; bh=EE8iG00lFFYRdgbODTVxEAf3ou7WLZTCeBo8k7Pty/g=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=YERz0w5oXTlx4LAx/R/uBnQY2kMVjuUID1EfRXMJYS96DqzTkc76qdKFc9CfNvD4qDiEG8q5XOehCuMRgH7npa5Grp9f9bRQ+HcEOrJGpR5uvzB/1EHg2ZExyMJCF3rXvwg9jGAdG7a9jRUdGrA2S/xCZcauC5HeD56rHNJIAXs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=listout.xyz; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=listout.xyz; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=listout.xyz header.i=@listout.xyz header.b=g2CuOUwe; arc=none smtp.client-ip=80.241.56.171 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=listout.xyz Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=listout.xyz Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=listout.xyz header.i=@listout.xyz header.b="g2CuOUwe" Received: from smtp2.mailbox.org (smtp2.mailbox.org [10.196.197.2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mout-p-201.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4dgQTb47WLz9tf6; Tue, 30 Dec 2025 08:59:15 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=listout.xyz; s=MBO0001; t=1767081555; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ZvnsWEuPgN8jE9Mwi9uKyXKkrad7PSMDsiT4kslg5Q4=; b=g2CuOUwe6z94nH+xHtbNM59Ulh0TKIkrEZWHQGpuFLKjTbVO6HxgK8H65b8tE7Z2PmNHJW k7rzCZ7u/m5LI9qEsbNol1cClAHaVK4zT4TnMBJ8Zhmezc3SGuZoy+auJsVaBVXZgU4WMy FWTJuyPbL3R45JKc7x9Y3oD0hh9JEfvhxayhEhUVke8C59XWpS7PfQw0XXsBmY4wub79DO azSLbd+pbFyk7Yfr1427ZUE0F7CXvLLeOUJKebLPG110VF1GKkHuuIjU+HH3QpPtAnv8/S wp/+4cLmtfhNsgxKyWv9K0kjnbCH696SLoCxTshfscqbkC6oPBgYflMgUHaWFA== Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2025 13:29:08 +0530 From: Brahmajit Das To: Cezary Rojewski Cc: Mark Brown , Takashi Iwai , linux-sound@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, liam.r.girdwood@linux.intel.com, peter.ujfalusi@linux.intel.com, tiwai@suse.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: Intel: avs: replace strcmp with sysfs_streq Message-ID: References: <20251221185531.6453-1-listout@listout.xyz> <176650962400.445350.17331328109538303145.b4-ty@kernel.org> <20251223192409.50a6e4ab@fedora> <877bucgpob.wl-tiwai@suse.de> <3cd18fd0-6fef-4804-9474-41a500329e6f@intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3cd18fd0-6fef-4804-9474-41a500329e6f@intel.com> On 29.12.2025 11:03, Cezary Rojewski wrote: > On 2025-12-24 12:35 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 24, 2025 at 11:05:56AM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > > I believe it's a false positive, too. > > > Or is it about potentially unterminated strings? > > > > Regardless of the warning being spurious or not the cleanup seems like a > > sensible one. > > Right now I leaning towards Amadeusz' opinion - looks like we're masking an > issue. id->tplg_name is being used in strcmp() context few times in this > file yet compiler complains about one particular location. > > gcc-16 is quite recent. It's good that we get the kernel building but after > the Christmas break some digging may be in order : ) > > > Brahmajit, > > While I'm sure you did, just to be sure - did you try clean-rebuild with the > 44-hardcode proposed by Amadeusz? We wouldn't want any old-artifacts to get > in the way. Hi Cezary, Yes, I did make clean and make allmodconfig after reverting my changes and hardcoding 44 as Amadeusz suggested. -- Regards, listout