From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753259AbXGRESb (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:18:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751179AbXGRESV (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:18:21 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72]:3712 "EHLO sj-iport-3.cisco.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751082AbXGREST (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:18:19 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAFcxnUarR7O6/2dsb2JhbAA X-IronPort-AV: i="4.16,548,1175497200"; d="scan'208"; a="504297302:sNHT27384422" To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Jeff Garzik , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, chas@cmf.nrl.navy.mil, rolandd@cisco.com, dwmw2@infradead.org, gregkh@suse.de Subject: Re: [git patches 1/2] warnings: attack valid cases spotted by warnings X-Message-Flag: Warning: May contain useful information References: <20070717214239.GF28448@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <469D3E66.3010502@garzik.org> From: Roland Dreier Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:18:15 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:00:10 -0700 (PDT)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) XEmacs/21.4.20 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jul 2007 04:18:16.0056 (UTC) FILETIME=[A9D8FF80:01C7C8F2] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=rdreier@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Quite frankly, I don't quite understand where you get those enormous balls > you have, that you can then talk about how ugly it is to just add a "= 0" > that shuts up a compiler warning. That's the _least_ ugly part of the > whole damn function! The clanking when I walk annoys people in the office too... But you're right. It is stupid of me to make such a big deal about this. My excuse is that I've seen those warnings so many times and actually given them more thought than they deserve, and I really felt that Jeff's change makes the admittedly already ugly code a tiny little bit worse. > Anyway, here's a totally untested cleanup that compiles but probably > doesn't work, because I didn't check that I did the right thing with all > the pointer arithmetic (ie when I change "wqe" to a real structure pointer > instead of just a "void *", maybe I left some pointer arithmetic around > that expected it to work as a byte pointer, but now really works on the > whole structure size instead). Given that you took the time to do this, I'll get the patch into a working state and apply it. And maybe split it into reviewable chunks while I'm at it ;) Thanks, Roland