Displaying 6 results from an estimated 6 matches for "pptabl".
Did you mean:
pptable
2023 Sep 25
1
[PATCH 1/9] drm/amd/pm: Annotate struct smu10_voltage_dependency_table with __counted_by
...isn't it?
>
> That would imply that we might need to byte swap count before it is
> checkable.
The script found this instance because of this:
static int smu10_get_clock_voltage_dependency_table(struct pp_hwmgr *hwmgr,
struct smu10_voltage_dependency_table **pptable,
uint32_t num_entry, const DpmClock_t *pclk_dependency_table)
{
uint32_t i;
struct smu10_voltage_dependency_table *ptable;
ptable = kzalloc(struct_size(ptable, entries, num_entry), GFP_KERNEL);
if (NULL == ptable)
return -ENO...
2023 Sep 25
1
[PATCH 1/9] drm/amd/pm: Annotate struct smu10_voltage_dependency_table with __counted_by
...isn't it?
>
> That would imply that we might need to byte swap count before it is
> checkable.
The script found this instance because of this:
static int smu10_get_clock_voltage_dependency_table(struct pp_hwmgr *hwmgr,
struct smu10_voltage_dependency_table **pptable,
uint32_t num_entry, const DpmClock_t *pclk_dependency_table)
{
uint32_t i;
struct smu10_voltage_dependency_table *ptable;
ptable = kzalloc(struct_size(ptable, entries, num_entry), GFP_KERNEL);
if (NULL == ptable)
return -ENO...
2023 Sep 25
1
[PATCH 1/9] drm/amd/pm: Annotate struct smu10_voltage_dependency_table with __counted_by
...isn't it?
>
> That would imply that we might need to byte swap count before it is
> checkable.
The script found this instance because of this:
static int smu10_get_clock_voltage_dependency_table(struct pp_hwmgr *hwmgr,
struct smu10_voltage_dependency_table **pptable,
uint32_t num_entry, const DpmClock_t *pclk_dependency_table)
{
uint32_t i;
struct smu10_voltage_dependency_table *ptable;
ptable = kzalloc(struct_size(ptable, entries, num_entry), GFP_KERNEL);
if (NULL == ptable)
return -ENO...
2023 Sep 25
2
[PATCH 1/9] drm/amd/pm: Annotate struct smu10_voltage_dependency_table with __counted_by
Am 22.09.23 um 19:41 schrieb Alex Deucher:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 1:32?PM Kees Cook <keescook at chromium.org> wrote:
>> Prepare for the coming implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by
>> attribute. Flexible array members annotated with __counted_by can have
>> their accesses bounds-checked at run-time checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS
>> (for array
2023 Sep 25
2
[PATCH 1/9] drm/amd/pm: Annotate struct smu10_voltage_dependency_table with __counted_by
Am 22.09.23 um 19:41 schrieb Alex Deucher:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 1:32?PM Kees Cook <keescook at chromium.org> wrote:
>> Prepare for the coming implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by
>> attribute. Flexible array members annotated with __counted_by can have
>> their accesses bounds-checked at run-time checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS
>> (for array
2023 Sep 25
2
[PATCH 1/9] drm/amd/pm: Annotate struct smu10_voltage_dependency_table with __counted_by
Am 22.09.23 um 19:41 schrieb Alex Deucher:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 1:32?PM Kees Cook <keescook at chromium.org> wrote:
>> Prepare for the coming implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by
>> attribute. Flexible array members annotated with __counted_by can have
>> their accesses bounds-checked at run-time checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS
>> (for array