Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 20 Mar 2012 06:51:43 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] drivers/telephony/ixj.c::add_caps(): don't rely on undefined behaviour |
| |
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:40:50AM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote: > On Mon, 19 Mar 2012, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 00:19 +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote: > > > On Mon, 19 Mar 2012, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2012-03-19 at 23:46 +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 19 Mar 2012, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 2012-03-19 at 23:37 +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote: > > > > > > > In drivers/telephony/ixj.c::add_caps() we have several statements like this: > > > > > > > j->caplist[j->caps].handle = j->caps++; > > > > > > > That's undefined behaviour right there. > > > > > > telephony has been moved to staging. > > > > > Since when? Where? > > > > > In my up-to-date Linus tree with HEAD at > > > > > c16fa4f2ad19908a47c63d8fa436a1178438c7e7, that file is is still in > > > > > drivers/telephony/, not in staging/... > > > > > /confused > > > > In the -next tree. > > > Ok, seems I've missed that. > > > > Yes, it's a bug fix, but drivers/telephony is pretty dead. > > > Dead or not, as long as it's in the tree I think that fixing bugs is > > > relevant. > > > Besides, who knows if/when it'll get ressurrected ;) > > > > Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest it shouldn't > > be fixed. > > > > I meant that it probably didn't need to be > > fixed during the merge window or maybe even > > not backported to stable unless you're sure > > the order of operations is now done correctly > > and with no real change in current operation > > by inspecting the object. I presume it worked > > before but it's likely not too many people > > actually still use this hardware with the > > current kernel. > > > I never intended to push it for -stable, it probably "works" in its > current form with any relevant compiler. I just spotted a bug and wanted > to fix it :-) > If it gets fixed during the merge window or at some other time I don't > really care - but I don't see any reason to not just fix it as soon as > possible. > > I have no idea how many people still use this hardware with current > kernels, but even if just a few do, they deserve to get code that has > well-defined behaviour with standards conforming C compilers and not what > is currently there that can change with different compilers/different > compiler versions.
Then care to send me the patch, against the linux-next tree, so I can queue it up for the 3.5 merge window?
greg k-h
| |