From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luc Van Oostenryck Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: traps: Mark __le16, __le32, __user variables properly Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 14:00:21 +0100 Message-ID: <20170222130020.vuk6wc2jwibtpc2h@macpro.local> References: <20170217165112.17512-1-stephen.boyd@linaro.org> <20170219015808.2vc2kvpde7nlrey4@macbook.local> <148758047729.2988.16966413648865610904@sboyd-linaro> <20170220104947.GE9003@leverpostej> <20170220213344.dqp4pzxr2dj6vbd3@macpro.local> <20170221110355.GD300@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f66.google.com ([74.125.82.66]:34632 "EHLO mail-wm0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754277AbdBVNAZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:00:25 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170221110355.GD300@arm.com> Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Will Deacon Cc: Mark Rutland , Stephen Boyd , Catalin Marinas , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Punit Agrawal , linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:03:56AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 10:33:45PM +0100, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: > > It's easy enough to patch sparse to not issue a warning when the > > override concerns a range (which would be perfect for the situation here), > > Controlled or not by a new warning flag. But I'm far from convinced > > that all uses of such "ranged-initialization" is used for default values > > that may be later overridden. > > How about not warning only when the overridden range covers the entire > length of the array? The only broken case I can think of that slips > through the cracks then is if somebody typoed the range so that it > accidentally covered the whole array and therefore suppressed the override > warning. > > Will I like it. Patch is coming. Luc