From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754070AbZLMTn6 (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:43:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754044AbZLMTn4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:43:56 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:44534 "HELO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754043AbZLMTny (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:43:54 -0500 Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:43:43 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Florian Tobias Schandinat Cc: Julia Lawall , JosephChan@via.com.tw, Scott Fang , linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] drivers/video: Correct code taking the size of a pointer Message-Id: <20091213114343.a60828d3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <4B24E3AB.9040609@gmx.de> References: <4B24E3AB.9040609@gmx.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.12.5; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:52:59 +0100 Florian Tobias Schandinat wrote: > Hi Julia, Andrew, > > Julia Lawall schrieb: > > From: Julia Lawall > > > > sizeof(viafb_gamma_table) is just the size of the pointer. This is changed > > to the size used when calling kmalloc to initialize the pointer. > > this is the second patch addressing this issue ending up in my mailbox. > At least this one is technically correct so feel free to upstream it. > However I vote for removing this ioctl hell from viafb as most of them > duplicate framebuffer functionality or have unknown (not clearly > defined) functionality or at least solve a generic problem with a custom > ioctl (which I consider bad). I had a patch ready to move this stuff to > an extra file and print a warning that it is subject to be removed. I > feel a bit uncomfortable about repairing broken stuff prior to removing it. > Any comments on this subject? > I favour both repairing and removing broken stuff ;) We may as well fix it if problems are known. Perhaps someone is hitting the problem at runtime in an older kernel and needs a patch to backport. Perhaps we later decide to revert the removal, thus reinstating the known bug.