On Thu, 25 Jul 2019, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 7/25/19 3:28 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 7/25/19 3:03 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> On Thu, 25 Jul 2019, h...@zytor.com wrote:
> >>> On July 25, 2019 2:48:30 PM PDT, Thomas Gleixner
> >>> wrote:
>
> But seriously I think it's not
On 7/25/19 3:37 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2019, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 7/25/19 3:03 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Jul 2019, h...@zytor.com wrote:
On July 25, 2019 2:48:30 PM PDT, Thomas Gleixner
wrote:
>
> But seriously I think it's not
On 7/25/19 3:28 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 7/25/19 3:03 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Jul 2019, h...@zytor.com wrote:
>>> On July 25, 2019 2:48:30 PM PDT, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
But seriously I think it's not completely insane what they are doing
and the table based
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 7/25/19 3:03 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Jul 2019, h...@zytor.com wrote:
> >> On July 25, 2019 2:48:30 PM PDT, Thomas Gleixner
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> But seriously I think it's not completely insane what they are doing
> >>> and the
On 7/25/19 3:03 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2019, h...@zytor.com wrote:
>> On July 25, 2019 2:48:30 PM PDT, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>
>>> But seriously I think it's not completely insane what they are doing
>>> and the table based approach is definitely more readable and
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019, h...@zytor.com wrote:
> On July 25, 2019 2:48:30 PM PDT, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > But seriously I think it's not completely insane what they are doing
> > and the table based approach is definitely more readable and maintainable
> > than the existing stuff.
>
> Doing
On July 25, 2019 2:48:30 PM PDT, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Jul 2019, John Hubbard wrote:
>> On 7/25/19 12:22 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> > It removes the clearing of the range between kbd_status and hdr
>without any
>> > replacement. It neither clears edid_info.
>>
>>
>> Yes. Somehow
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 7/25/19 12:22 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > It removes the clearing of the range between kbd_status and hdr without any
> > replacement. It neither clears edid_info.
>
>
> Yes. Somehow I left that chunk out. Not my finest hour.
S*** happens
> > +
On 7/25/19 1:38 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 7/25/19 12:22 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> The easy way would be to put in a suitable cast to clear the warning -- I
> would not be surprised if an explicit cast to something like (void *) would
> quiet the warning, or else (yuck) put in an explicit
On 7/25/19 12:22 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>
>> The problem with this is that it will break silently when changes are
>> made to this structure.
>
> That's not really the worst problem. Changes to that struct which touch any
> of the to be cleared ranges will break anyway if not handled
On 7/25/19 12:22 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2019, h...@zytor.com wrote:
>> On July 24, 2019 4:15:28 PM PDT, john.hubb...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> From: John Hubbard
>>>
>>> Recent gcc compilers (gcc 9.1) generate warnings about an
>>> out of bounds memset, if you trying memset across
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019, h...@zytor.com wrote:
> On July 24, 2019 4:15:28 PM PDT, john.hubb...@gmail.com wrote:
> >From: John Hubbard
> >
> >Recent gcc compilers (gcc 9.1) generate warnings about an
> >out of bounds memset, if you trying memset across several fields
> >of a struct. This generated a
On 7/24/19 7:12 PM, h...@zytor.com wrote:
On July 24, 2019 4:15:28 PM PDT, john.hubb...@gmail.com wrote:
From: John Hubbard
...
+ boot_params->ext_ramdisk_image = 0;
+ boot_params->ext_ramdisk_size = 0;
+ boot_params->ext_cmd_line_ptr = 0;
+
+
On July 24, 2019 4:15:28 PM PDT, john.hubb...@gmail.com wrote:
>From: John Hubbard
>
>Recent gcc compilers (gcc 9.1) generate warnings about an
>out of bounds memset, if you trying memset across several fields
>of a struct. This generated a couple of warnings on x86_64 builds.
>
>Because struct
From: John Hubbard
Recent gcc compilers (gcc 9.1) generate warnings about an
out of bounds memset, if you trying memset across several fields
of a struct. This generated a couple of warnings on x86_64 builds.
Because struct boot_params is __packed__, normal variable
variable assignment will
15 matches
Mail list logo
