On Mon, 2016-10-24 at 14:36 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 04:09:37AM -0700, Michael Zoran wrote: > > I didn't think it looked totally correct, but I'm not sure it's any > > more broken then what is already in the tree. > > It's not more broken. But better to leave the compile warning there > to > mark that it is an obvious security problem. > > > > > If you can kindly point me to some other source code or > > documentation > > to look at that is correct, I'm more then willing to fix the patch. > > > > I was hoping the maintainers could chip in, because I didn't want to > look at the code. We really need to track which are use pointers and > which are kernel pointers. We can't mix them like this. > > regards, > dan carpenter >
The problem is that I'm mostly interested in arm64 ATM, and I don't think the existing code works at all with 64 bit pointers. Broken as it may be... _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
