These flags are in a strange order, reorder the list, add spaces when
it is relevant, pack definitions that are related.

There is no functional change.
Signed-off-by: NMiquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
Reviewed-by: NBoris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mtd/20200507105241.14299-3-miquel.raynal@bootlin.com

Use the BIT() macro instead of defining a 8-digit value.
Signed-off-by: NMiquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
Reviewed-by: NBoris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mtd/20200507105241.14299-2-miquel.raynal@bootlin.com

MLC NANDs can be made a bit more reliable if we only program the lower
page of each pair. At least, this solves the paired-pages corruption
issue.
Signed-off-by: NBoris Brezillon <bbrezillon@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: NMiquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mtd/20200503155341.16712-5-miquel.raynal@bootlin.com

Convert the timings union into a structure containing the mode and the
actual values. The values are still a union in prevision of the
addition of the NVDDR modes.
Signed-off-by: NMiquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
Reviewed-by: NBoris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mtd/20200428094302.14624-2-miquel.raynal@bootlin.com

This macro was intentionally broken so that the kernel code is not
poluted with such noargs macro used simply as markers. This use case
can be satisfied by using dummy no inline functions. Just remove it.

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200413153246.8511-1-nborisov@suse.comSigned-off-by: NNikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: NSteven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org>

As the bug report [1] pointed out, <linux/vermagic.h> must be included
after <linux/module.h>.

I believe we should not impose any include order restriction. We often
sort include directives alphabetically, but it is just coding style
convention. Technically, we can include header files in any order by
making every header self-contained.

Currently, arch-specific MODULE_ARCH_VERMAGIC is defined in
<asm/module.h>, which is not included from <linux/vermagic.h>.

Hence, the straight-forward fix-up would be as follows:

|--- a/include/linux/vermagic.h
|+++ b/include/linux/vermagic.h
|@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
| /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
| #include <generated/utsrelease.h>
|+#include <linux/module.h>
|
| /* Simply sanity version stamp for modules. */
| #ifdef CONFIG_SMP

This works enough, but for further cleanups, I split MODULE_ARCH_VERMAGIC
definitions into <asm/vermagic.h>.

With this, <linux/module.h> and <linux/vermagic.h> will be orthogonal,
and the location of MODULE_ARCH_VERMAGIC definitions will be consistent.

For arc and ia64, MODULE_PROC_FAMILY is only used for defining
MODULE_ARCH_VERMAGIC. I squashed it.

For hexagon, nds32, and xtensa, I removed <asm/modules.h> entirely
because they contained nothing but MODULE_ARCH_VERMAGIC definition.
Kbuild will automatically generate <asm/modules.h> at build-time,
wrapping <asm-generic/module.h>.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200411155623.GA22175@zn.tnicReported-by: NBorislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: NMasahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
Acked-by: NJessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>

Aside from good practice, this avoids a warning from gcc 10:

./include/linux/kernel.h:997:3: warning: array subscript -31 is outside array bounds of ‘struct list_head[1]’ [-Warray-bounds]
  997 |  ((type *)(__mptr - offsetof(type, member))); })
      |  ~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
./include/linux/list.h:493:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘container_of’
  493 |  container_of(ptr, type, member)
      |  ^~~~~~~~~~~~
./include/linux/pnp.h:275:30: note: in expansion of macro ‘list_entry’
  275 | #define global_to_pnp_dev(n) list_entry(n, struct pnp_dev, global_list)
      |                              ^~~~~~~~~~
./include/linux/pnp.h:281:11: note: in expansion of macro ‘global_to_pnp_dev’
  281 |  (dev) != global_to_pnp_dev(&pnp_global); \
      |           ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
arch/x86/kernel/rtc.c:189:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘pnp_for_each_dev’
  189 |  pnp_for_each_dev(dev) {

Because the common code doesn't cast the starting list_head to the
containing struct.
Signed-off-by: NJason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
[ rjw: Whitespace adjustments ]
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

This patch is to enable Intel SERDES power up/down sequence. The SERDES
converts 8/10 bits data to SGMII signal. Below is an example of
HW configuration for SGMII mode. The SERDES is located in the PHY IF
in the diagram below.

<-----------------GBE Controller---------->|<--External PHY chip-->
+----------+         +----+            +---+           +----------+
|   EQoS   | <-GMII->| DW | < ------ > |PHY| <-SGMII-> | External |
|   MAC    |         |xPCS|            |IF |           | PHY      |
+----------+         +----+            +---+           +----------+
       ^               ^                 ^                ^
       |               |                 |                |
       +---------------------MDIO-------------------------+

PHY IF configuration and status registers are accessible through
mdio address 0x15 which is defined as mdio_adhoc_addr. During D0,
The driver will need to power up PHY IF by changing the power state
to P0. Likewise, for D3, the driver sets PHY IF power state to P3.
Signed-off-by: NVoon Weifeng <weifeng.voon@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NOng Boon Leong <boon.leong.ong@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

remap_vmalloc_range() has had various issues with the bounds checks it
promises to perform ("This function checks that addr is a valid
vmalloc'ed area, and that it is big enough to cover the vma") over time,
e.g.:

 - not detecting pgoff<<PAGE_SHIFT overflow

 - not detecting (pgoff<<PAGE_SHIFT)+usize overflow

 - not checking whether addr and addr+(pgoff<<PAGE_SHIFT) are the same
   vmalloc allocation

 - comparing a potentially wildly out-of-bounds pointer with the end of
   the vmalloc region

In particular, since commit fc970227 ("bpf: Add mmap() support for
BPF_MAP_TYPE_ARRAY"), unprivileged users can cause kernel null pointer
dereferences by calling mmap() on a BPF map with a size that is bigger
than the distance from the start of the BPF map to the end of the
address space.

This could theoretically be used as a kernel ASLR bypass, by using
whether mmap() with a given offset oopses or returns an error code to
perform a binary search over the possible address range.

To allow remap_vmalloc_range_partial() to verify that addr and
addr+(pgoff<<PAGE_SHIFT) are in the same vmalloc region, pass the offset
to remap_vmalloc_range_partial() instead of adding it to the pointer in
remap_vmalloc_range().

In remap_vmalloc_range_partial(), fix the check against
get_vm_area_size() by using size comparisons instead of pointer
comparisons, and add checks for pgoff.

Fixes: 83342314 ("[PATCH] mm: introduce remap_vmalloc_range()")
Signed-off-by: NJann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Cc: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Cc: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Cc: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Cc: KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200415222312.236431-1-jannh@google.comSigned-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

This change removes the semi-colon from the devm_iio_device_register()
macro which seems to have been added by accident.

Fixes: 63b19547 ("iio: Use macro magic to avoid manual assign of driver_module")
Signed-off-by: NLars Engebretsen <lars@engebretsen.ch>
Cc: <Stable@vger.kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: NAlexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@analog.com>
Signed-off-by: NJonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: NGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

free_more_memory func has been completely removed in commit bc48f001
("buffer: eliminate the need to call free_more_memory() in __getblk_slow()")

So comment and `WB_REASON_FREE_MORE_MEM` reason about free_more_memory
are no longer needed.

Fixes: bc48f001 ("buffer: eliminate the need to call free_more_memory() in __getblk_slow()")
Reviewed-by: NJan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: NZhiqiang Liu <liuzhiqiang26@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: NJens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>

Utilize the xpo_release_rqst transport method to ensure that each
rqstp's svc_rdma_recv_ctxt object is released even when the server
cannot return a Reply for that rqstp.

Without this fix, each RPC whose Reply cannot be sent leaks one
svc_rdma_recv_ctxt. This is a 2.5KB structure, a 4KB DMA-mapped
Receive buffer, and any pages that might be part of the Reply
message.

The leak is infrequent unless the network fabric is unreliable or
Kerberos is in use, as GSS sequence window overruns, which result
in connection loss, are more common on fast transports.

Fixes: 3a88092e ("svcrdma: Preserve Receive buffer until svc_rdma_sendto")
Signed-off-by: NChuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>

No one checks the return value of debugfs_create_u32(), as it's not
needed, so make the return value void, so that no one tries to do so in
the future.
Signed-off-by: NGreg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200416145448.GA1380878@kroah.comSigned-off-by: NGreg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

Most virtio drivers don't depend on vringh, let's not
pull that dependency, include it directly as needed.
Signed-off-by: NMichael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>