Re: [PATCH 2/2][next] net: ethtool: Avoid thousands of -Wflex-array-member-not-at-end warnings

["Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>]

On 29/10/24 14:00, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 13:18:56 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> By priority I mean if preserving the reverse xmas tree is a most
>> after any changes that mess in some way with it. As in the case below,
>> where things were already messed up:
>>
>> +       const struct ethtool_link_settings_hdr *base = &lk_ksettings->base;
>>           struct bnxt *bp = netdev_priv(dev);
>>           struct bnxt_link_info *link_info = &bp->link_info;
>> -       const struct ethtool_link_settings *base = &lk_ksettings->base;
>>           bool set_pause = false;
>>           u32 speed, lanes = 0;
>>           int rc = 0;
>>
>> Should I leave the rest as-is, or should I now have to rearrange the whole
>> thing to accommodate for the convention?
> 
> Don't rearrange the rest. The point is that if you touch a line you end
> up with a delete and an add. So you can as well move it to get it closer
> to the convention. But that's just nice to have, I brought the entire
> thing up because of the net/ethtool/ code which previously followed the
> convention and after changes it wouldn't.
> 
>> How I see this, we can take a couple of directions:
>>
>> a) when things are already messed up, just implement your changes and leave
>> the rest as-is.
> 
> This is acceptable, moving things closer to convention is nice to have.
> 
>> b) when your changes mess things up, clean it up and accommodate for the
>> convention.
> 
> Yes, if by "your changes mess things up" you mean that the code follows
> the convention exactly for a given function - then yes, the changes must
> remain complaint. Not sure why you say "clean it up", if the code is
> complaint you shouldn't break it. No touching of pre-existing code
> (other than modified lines) should be necessary.

Gotcha. Hopefully, this v2 is just fine:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hardening/cover.1730238285.git.gustavoars@kernel.org/

Thanks!
-Gustavo

> 
>> extra option:
>>
>> c) this is probably going to be a case by case thing and we may ask you
>>      to do more changes as we see fit.
>>
>> To be clear, I have no issue with c) (because it's basically how things
>> usually work), as long as maintainers don't expect v1 of any patch to
>> be in pristine form. In any other case, I would really like to be crystal
>> clear about what's expected and what's not.