Re: [PATCH 3/3] tpm_crb: use __le64 annotated variable for response buffer address

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>]

On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 10:28:21AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 03:03:20PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 04, 2018 at 02:12:05PM +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> > > This suppresses sparse warning
> > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm_crb.c:558:18: warning: cast to restricted __le64
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@intel.com>
> > >  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_crb.c | 5 +++--
> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > The guideline is that you should describe what is wrong rather than
> > copy-paste the sparse message.
> 
> Jason, didn't yo give the feedback to some patch 1-2 years ago that
> instead of copy-pasting parse error one should write a clear commit
> msg or is this OK?

The standard is to give some explaination why the tool complaint is
valid and then if suitable include the tool complaint itself.

Eg bad:

Fix sparse warning on resp

Good:

use __le64 annotated variable for response buffer address

IMHO, the subject line sufficiently describes the patch, and it is
generally OK to clip the tool warning into the body..

Jason