Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 9 Apr 2018 14:05:26 +0200 | From | Petr Mladek <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 2/9] vsprintf: Consistent %pK handling for kptr_restrict == 0 |
| |
On Sat 2018-04-07 17:08:18, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, 2018-04-05 at 16:46 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > > On Thu 2018-04-05 16:04:45, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Wed, 2018-04-04 at 10:58 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > > > > restricted_pointer() pretends that it prints the address when > > > > kptr_restrict > > > > is set to zero. But it is never called in this situation. Instead, > > > > pointer() falls back to ptr_to_id() and hashes the pointer. > > > > > > > > This patch removes the potential confusion. klp_restrict is > > > > checked > > > > only > > > > in restricted_pointer(). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /* Maps a pointer to a 32 bit unique identifier. */ > > > > -static char *ptr_to_id(char *buf, char *end, void *ptr, struct > > > > printf_spec spec) > > > > +static char *ptr_to_id(char *buf, char *end, > > > > + const void *ptr, struct printf_spec spec) > > > > > > I don't think this change belongs to the patch. > > > > The const should have been there from the beginning. I have found it > > because this patch added a call to ptr_to_id() which had the const > > and compiler warned about cast problems. > > So, why not to do a separate patch with clear intention?
If you insist I could do it as separate patch.
> > IMHO, it is rather cosmetic change. > > >From my experience I'm afraid of cosmetic changes in the patches which > might focus out attention on real fix.
I would understand this if it was part of a large patch that changed complex chain of functions. But this patch touched 5 lines. The const is added into static function that is almost leaf and was called only from a single location.
Best Regards, Petr
|  |