On Thu, 14 Nov 2024, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 14.11.2024 03:34, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Nov 2024, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 13.11.2024 04:15, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >>> It is challenging to create a solution that satisfies everyone for this
> >>> patch. However, we should add
On 14.11.2024 03:34, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2024, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 13.11.2024 04:15, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> It is challenging to create a solution that satisfies everyone for this
>>> patch. However, we should add R8.3 to the clean list as soon as possible
>>> to
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 13.11.2024 04:15, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > It is challenging to create a solution that satisfies everyone for this
> > patch. However, we should add R8.3 to the clean list as soon as possible
> > to enable rule blocking in GitLab-CI. Failing to do s
On 13.11.2024 04:15, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> It is challenging to create a solution that satisfies everyone for this
> patch. However, we should add R8.3 to the clean list as soon as possible
> to enable rule blocking in GitLab-CI. Failing to do so risks introducing
> regressions, as recently o
Hi Jan,
It is challenging to create a solution that satisfies everyone for this
patch. However, we should add R8.3 to the clean list as soon as possible
to enable rule blocking in GitLab-CI. Failing to do so risks introducing
regressions, as recently occurred, undoing the significant efforts made
On 21.06.2024 22:58, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> Right now, the non-compat declaration and definition of do_multicall()
> differing types for the nr_calls parameter.
>
> This is a MISRA rule 8.3 violation, but it's also time-bomb waiting for the
> first 128bit architecture (RISC-V looks as if it might
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> Right now, the non-compat declaration and definition of do_multicall()
> differing types for the nr_calls parameter.
>
> This is a MISRA rule 8.3 violation, but it's also time-bomb waiting for the
> first 128bit architecture (RISC-V looks as if it might
Right now, the non-compat declaration and definition of do_multicall()
differing types for the nr_calls parameter.
This is a MISRA rule 8.3 violation, but it's also time-bomb waiting for the
first 128bit architecture (RISC-V looks as if it might get there first).
Worse, the type chosen here has a
