On 07/25/2012 01:12 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> I wonder how many such bugs a memzero()/bzero() will prevent.
>
> If the compiler-foo is possible with gcc then a 0 length constant
> memset warning and a warning if the set value is > 255 would both
> probably be useful.
It's pretty easy with BUILD_BUG_
> I wonder how many such bugs a memzero()/bzero() will prevent.
If the compiler-foo is possible with gcc then a 0 length constant
memset warning and a warning if the set value is > 255 would both
probably be useful.
Fortunately a lot of other validation/verification tools do pick it up
already.
> Yeah, not sure what's going on here. Alan sent me the patch a while
> back in a private mail, so I asked him to resend it to the ML, so
> it's available for review. Next thing that happens is this mail a few
> weeks later.
I don't recall seeing your your reply and I really wasn't sure where it
n
On 07/25/2012 12:00 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 25.07.2012, at 10:32, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> On 07/25/2012 12:00 AM, a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
>>> The patch titled
>>> Subject: ppc: e500_tlb memset clears nothing
>>> has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is
>>> ppc-e5
On 25.07.2012, at 10:32, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 07/25/2012 12:00 AM, a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
>> The patch titled
>> Subject: ppc: e500_tlb memset clears nothing
>> has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is
>> ppc-e500_tlb-memset-clears-nothing.patch
>>
>
> The kvm tree
On 07/25/2012 12:00 AM, a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
> The patch titled
> Subject: ppc: e500_tlb memset clears nothing
> has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is
> ppc-e500_tlb-memset-clears-nothing.patch
>
The kvm tree is maintained. Alex, please pick up this patch; I gues
