On Fri, 2025-05-02 at 09:49 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> On 5/2/25 07:33, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Thu, May 01, 2025 at 09:52:08PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 02, 2025 at 05:31:49AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 01, 2025 at 09:26:25PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote:
> >
>
On 5/2/25 07:33, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2025 at 09:52:08PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote:
>> On Fri, May 02, 2025 at 05:31:49AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 01, 2025 at 09:26:25PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote:
>
>>> And what is the lifecycle of that thing? E.g. what is guaranteed ab
On Thu, May 01, 2025 at 09:52:08PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2025 at 05:31:49AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Thu, May 01, 2025 at 09:26:25PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > And what is the lifecycle of that thing? E.g. what is guaranteed about
> > ttm_backup_fini() vs. functio
On Fri, May 02, 2025 at 05:31:49AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2025 at 09:26:25PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote:
>
> > I;m fairly certain is just aliasing... but I do understand a file cannot
> > be embedded. Would comment help here indicating no other fields should
> > be added to ttm_ba
On Thu, May 01, 2025 at 09:26:25PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote:
> I;m fairly certain is just aliasing... but I do understand a file cannot
> be embedded. Would comment help here indicating no other fields should
> be added to ttm_backup without struct file be converted to pointer or
> that just to
On Fri, May 02, 2025 at 03:34:47AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2025 at 07:13:12PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > On Thu, May 01, 2025 at 05:24:38PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > Casting through a "void *" isn't sufficient to convince the randstruct
> > > GCC plugin that the result is i
On Fri, May 02, 2025 at 03:34:47AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2025 at 07:13:12PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > On Thu, May 01, 2025 at 05:24:38PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > Casting through a "void *" isn't sufficient to convince the randstruct
> > > GCC plugin that the result is i
On Thu, May 01, 2025 at 07:13:12PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2025 at 05:24:38PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > Casting through a "void *" isn't sufficient to convince the randstruct
> > GCC plugin that the result is intentional. Instead operate through an
> > explicit union to sile
On Thu, May 01, 2025 at 07:13:12PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2025 at 05:24:38PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > Casting through a "void *" isn't sufficient to convince the randstruct
> > GCC plugin that the result is intentional. Instead operate through an
> > explicit union to sile
On Thu, May 01, 2025 at 05:24:38PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> Casting through a "void *" isn't sufficient to convince the randstruct
> GCC plugin that the result is intentional. Instead operate through an
> explicit union to silence the warning:
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_backup.c: In function 'tt
Casting through a "void *" isn't sufficient to convince the randstruct
GCC plugin that the result is intentional. Instead operate through an
explicit union to silence the warning:
drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_backup.c: In function 'ttm_file_to_backup':
drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_backup.c:21:16: note: rand
11 matches
Mail list logo
