Re: module/taint: Automatically increase the buffer size for new taint flags

Jessica Yu writes: > I liked the enum idea because we got TAINT_FLAGS_COUNT for free :-) > however I think we need to switch back to the #defines because of the kbuild > error. > > The "Error: invalid operands...for `<<'" messages are related to the > __WARN_TAINT() macro

Re: module/taint: Automatically increase the buffer size for new taint flags

Jessica Yu writes: > I liked the enum idea because we got TAINT_FLAGS_COUNT for free :-) > however I think we need to switch back to the #defines because of the kbuild > error. > > The "Error: invalid operands...for `<<'" messages are related to the > __WARN_TAINT() macro

Re: module/taint: Automatically increase the buffer size for new taint flags

+++ Petr Mladek [07/09/16 15:13 +0200]: The commit 66cc69e34e86a231 ("Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE") updated module_taint_flags() to potentially print one more character. But it did not increase the size of the corresponding buffers in m_show() and

Re: module/taint: Automatically increase the buffer size for new taint flags

+++ Petr Mladek [07/09/16 15:13 +0200]: The commit 66cc69e34e86a231 ("Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE") updated module_taint_flags() to potentially print one more character. But it did not increase the size of the corresponding buffers in m_show() and

Re: [PATCH] module/taint: Automatically increase the buffer size for new taint flags

Petr Mladek writes: > The commit 66cc69e34e86a231 ("Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: > add new TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE") updated module_taint_flags() to > potentially print one more character. But it did not increase the > size of the corresponding buffers in m_show() and

Re: [PATCH] module/taint: Automatically increase the buffer size for new taint flags

Petr Mladek writes: > The commit 66cc69e34e86a231 ("Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: > add new TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE") updated module_taint_flags() to > potentially print one more character. But it did not increase the > size of the corresponding buffers in m_show() and print_modules(). I

Re: [PATCH] module/taint: Automatically increase the buffer size for new taint flags

hat (public, well-known) commit your patch series was built on] [Check https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch for more information] url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Petr-Mladek/module-taint-Automatically-increase-the-buffer-size-for-new-taint-flags/20160907-212318 config: ar

Re: [PATCH] module/taint: Automatically increase the buffer size for new taint flags

hat (public, well-known) commit your patch series was built on] [Check https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch for more information] url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Petr-Mladek/module-taint-Automatically-increase-the-buffer-size-for-new-taint-flags/20160907-212318 config: ar

[PATCH] module/taint: Automatically increase the buffer size for new taint flags

The commit 66cc69e34e86a231 ("Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE") updated module_taint_flags() to potentially print one more character. But it did not increase the size of the corresponding buffers in m_show() and print_modules(). We have recently done the same

[PATCH] module/taint: Automatically increase the buffer size for new taint flags

The commit 66cc69e34e86a231 ("Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE") updated module_taint_flags() to potentially print one more character. But it did not increase the size of the corresponding buffers in m_show() and print_modules(). We have recently done the same