On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:50:09AM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> El Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 08:19:36PM +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman ha dit:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:14:56AM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > > El Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 08:05:56PM +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman ha dit:
> > >
> > >
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:50:09AM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> El Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 08:19:36PM +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman ha dit:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:14:56AM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > > El Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 08:05:56PM +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman ha dit:
> > >
> > >
El Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 08:19:36PM +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman ha dit:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:14:56AM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > El Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 08:05:56PM +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman ha dit:
> >
> > >
> > > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
El Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 08:19:36PM +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman ha dit:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:14:56AM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > El Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 08:05:56PM +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman ha dit:
> >
> > >
> > > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:14:56AM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> El Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 08:05:56PM +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman ha dit:
>
> >
> > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> > A: Top-posting.
> > Q: What is
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:14:56AM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> El Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 08:05:56PM +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman ha dit:
>
> >
> > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> > A: Top-posting.
> > Q: What is
El Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 08:05:56PM +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman ha dit:
>
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
>
> A: No.
> Q: Should I include quotations
El Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 08:05:56PM +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman ha dit:
>
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
>
> A: No.
> Q: Should I include quotations
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/on_top
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/on_top
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:30:51AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 07:47:53AM -0700, Manoj Gupta wrote:
> > Please note that there is nothing wrong in the generated code, just
> > that it confuses objtool.
> > Clang has simply omitted the statement where NULL is returned
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:30:51AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 07:47:53AM -0700, Manoj Gupta wrote:
> > Please note that there is nothing wrong in the generated code, just
> > that it confuses objtool.
> > Clang has simply omitted the statement where NULL is returned
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 07:47:53AM -0700, Manoj Gupta wrote:
> Please note that there is nothing wrong in the generated code, just
> that it confuses objtool.
> Clang has simply omitted the statement where NULL is returned since
> the pointer was always dereferenced post inlining.
... but
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 07:47:53AM -0700, Manoj Gupta wrote:
> Please note that there is nothing wrong in the generated code, just
> that it confuses objtool.
> Clang has simply omitted the statement where NULL is returned since
> the pointer was always dereferenced post inlining.
... but
Please note that there is nothing wrong in the generated code, just
that it confuses objtool.
Clang has simply omitted the statement where NULL is returned since
the pointer was always dereferenced post inlining.
Note that GCC will also remove the NULL pointers if it knows that the
pointer is
Please note that there is nothing wrong in the generated code, just
that it confuses objtool.
Clang has simply omitted the statement where NULL is returned since
the pointer was always dereferenced post inlining.
Note that GCC will also remove the NULL pointers if it knows that the
pointer is
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 04:55:53PM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> debugfs_real_fops() returns a NULL pointer when it is invoked without a
> prior call to debugfs_file_get(). In code paths including this call it
> is not strictly necessary to check the return value of
> debugfs_real_fops().
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 04:55:53PM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> debugfs_real_fops() returns a NULL pointer when it is invoked without a
> prior call to debugfs_file_get(). In code paths including this call it
> is not strictly necessary to check the return value of
> debugfs_real_fops().
debugfs_real_fops() returns a NULL pointer when it is invoked without a
prior call to debugfs_file_get(). In code paths including this call it
is not strictly necessary to check the return value of
debugfs_real_fops(). However clang inlines debugfs_real_fops(), detects
the invalid dereferencing of
debugfs_real_fops() returns a NULL pointer when it is invoked without a
prior call to debugfs_file_get(). In code paths including this call it
is not strictly necessary to check the return value of
debugfs_real_fops(). However clang inlines debugfs_real_fops(), detects
the invalid dereferencing of
20 matches
Mail list logo