From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 85DDB3A7186 for ; Tue, 26 May 2026 04:41:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779770471; cv=none; b=GCNDk0ORCQjyG7GN8cLk5KyNM2Rlj0LfZGyzOEJu3+7VmLg2E3CVfm6+L45AvMLlHgw0rNM3q5aDLnqWuWlcMZ4fvmqaQo2pBO9ZM1VXYwBOaP35DOUFDDF16dQHLNQL8aE0vQatlgpAGo3+6tacz9rY5pydBGhcRfyQznotkR0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779770471; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xJ86fXBjfFNJh7GBPYbuQAwpdHl01DwqPRIM+MkY6ZU=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=Qb+G4UMRazsm8Ha93ZY2bZSxZnG04R0kOfLnM9PWUbMmStm/YmrcCTsLASgIMqrDtiqo3+cE3aluCT1FY/mO28QfyADGXgM9ina1Rm23jE9TMjUTR/ca4a5BlevW++U0Foy59ebgNTR+82zRxOMhM/szkgPI5GwUKMbBKmXoT2c= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=jrVdje0z; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="jrVdje0z" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 29B821F000E9; Tue, 26 May 2026 04:41:10 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1779770470; bh=I1dp4Ndkzd/I8EAiPo8rqJRjxv/q7pnS9GQgbHvZG2Y=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=jrVdje0zxwFXxP627z1mITpb6we7MAVoT4+77PbV6ZrLNwS6vtWxKMGte2RudDtL8 dKH/dx3pxTQE10+7C4IakMeLPoeBVo2alkcnFH6hiwQNtXhzl0JSdYAtMk7AuN/9Fs eoZWPJeBwIiMoNoIJUO6nqEab3l/zNLTyzbVSvb9Xdxmzp6pZ+Rgsk33mYLU4oR4yO dtUOsiTTc0l12oNJaygUirzUJJfwtDPXDGk/UsVJmgkCTw5d8YwUje4JDr8rH996jl gcb/PidLutiasm3KaQMnWl3PVU+GL+dga+WADccHv4/EY9sim8u/CT3Y05AX/4hpFm 46U+0EeWcvK2Q== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] PCI: hotplug: compaq: fix X86 dependency Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Rosen Penev" Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260526042614.1013867-1-rosenp@gmail.com> References: <20260526042614.1013867-1-rosenp@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 26 May 2026 04:41:09 +0000 Message-Id: <20260526044110.29B821F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Medium] The commit introduces a redundant X86_32 dependency and the comm= it message falsely claims it fixes an x86_64 compilation failure. -- commit 2f32c0aa3739414d8be655780c2734e155b45ea8 Author: Rosen Penev PCI: hotplug: compaq: fix X86 dependency This commit restricts the HOTPLUG_PCI_COMPAQ Kconfig dependency from X86 to X86_32. The commit message indicates this is to prevent x86_64 build failures caused by invalid assembly. > This driver needs X86_32, not X86. It does not compile on x86_64 because > of invalid assembly there. [Severity: Medium] Is this description accurate? HOTPLUG_PCI_COMPAQ already depends on PCI_BIOS. In arch/x86/Kconfig, config PCI_BIOS is defined with depends on X86_32. Because of this dependency, the driver could not be selected or compiled on x86_64 even before this patch. Could the commit message be updated to reflect this? > diff --git a/drivers/pci/hotplug/Kconfig b/drivers/pci/hotplug/Kconfig > index 3207860b52e42..5074c0ac4ce18 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/hotplug/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/pci/hotplug/Kconfig > @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ if HOTPLUG_PCI > =20 > config HOTPLUG_PCI_COMPAQ > tristate "Compaq PCI Hotplug driver" > - depends on X86 && PCI_BIOS > + depends on X86_32 && PCI_BIOS [Severity: Medium] Does this introduce a redundant check? Since PCI_BIOS already restricts the build to X86_32, changing X86 to X86_32 appears to provide no functional difference. --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260526042614.1013= 867-1-rosenp@gmail.com?part=3D1