On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Måns Andersson wrote:
> From: Mans Andersson
>
> Add suport for the TI TLK105 and TLK106 10/100Mbit ethernet phys.
>
Hi Mans,
Some quick notes.
> In addition the TLK10X needs to be removed from DP83848 driver as
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 1:03 PM, Miguel Ojeda
> <miguel.ojeda.sando...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Kees - is there some online "gcc-4.4 checker" somewhere? This
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 1:03 PM, Miguel Ojeda
> <miguel.ojeda.sando...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Kees - is there some online "gcc-4.4 checker" somewhere? This
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 8:27 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Al Viro wrote:
>>
>> That's not them, that's C standard regarding ICE.
>
> Yes. The C standard talks about "integer constant expression". I know.
>
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 12:49 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>> What I'm *not* so much ok with is "const_max(5,sizeof(x))" erroring
>> out, or silently causing insane behavior due to hidden
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 12:08 AM, Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sando...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:58 PM, Miguel Ojeda
> <miguel.ojeda.sando...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:46 PM, Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote:
&
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:58 PM, Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sando...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:46 PM, Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>> By using this eye-bleed:
>>
>> size_t __error_not_const_arg(void) \
>> __compile
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:46 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>
>>> size_t __error_not_const_arg(void) \
>>>
On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 12:12 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> The problem is that it's not a "constant expression", so the compiler
> frontend still yells about it under -Wvla. I would characterize this
> mainly as a fix for "accidental VLA" or "misdetected VLA" or something
>
On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 6:51 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> So in *historical* context - when a compiler didn't do variable length
> arrays at all - the original semantics of C "constant expressions"
> actually make a ton of sense.
>
> You can basically think of a
On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 7:33 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> Alright, I'm giving up on fixing max(). I'll go back to STACK_MAX() or
>> some other name for the simple macro. Bleh.
>
> Oh, and
On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 7:10 AM, Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sando...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 4:11 AM, Randy Dunlap <rdun...@infradead.org> wrote:
>> On 03/09/2018 04:07 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 12:05:36 -0800 Kees Cook
On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 4:11 AM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 03/09/2018 04:07 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 12:05:36 -0800 Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>>> When max() is used in stack array size calculations from literal values
>>> (e.g. "char
13 matches
Mail list logo