Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Feedback-ID: i56a14606:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.9.0-alpha0-499-gf27bbf33e2-fm-20230619.001-gf27bbf33
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <336f2156-220f-47ff-be97-5a2a9c475372@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <202306211131.18885FF471@keescook>
References: <20230616092233.3229414-1-arnd@kernel.org>
 <20230616092233.3229414-2-arnd@kernel.org> <202306211131.18885FF471@keescook>
Date:   Wed, 21 Jun 2023 20:42:10 +0200
From:   "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>
To:     "Kees Cook" <keescook@chromium.org>,
        "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@kernel.org>
Cc:     "Anil Gurumurthy" <anil.gurumurthy@qlogic.com>,
        "Sudarsana Kalluru" <sudarsana.kalluru@qlogic.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        "Azeem Shaikh" <azeemshaikh38@gmail.com>,
        "Bjorn Helgaas" <bhelgaas@google.com>, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] scsi: bfa: fix function pointer type mismatch for state
 machines
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 21, 2023, at 20:33, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 11:22:10AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>
> Thanks for all this! It's a lot of mechanical changes, but looks correct
> to me. One nit below...
>
> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
>
>> [...]
>>  static void
>> -bfad_sm_uninit(struct bfad_s *bfad, enum bfad_sm_event event);
>> +bfad_sm_uninit(struct bfad_s *bfad, enum bfad_sm_event);
>>  static void
>> -bfad_sm_created(struct bfad_s *bfad, enum bfad_sm_event event);
>> +bfad_sm_created(struct bfad_s *bfad, enum bfad_sm_event);
>>  static void
>> -bfad_sm_initializing(struct bfad_s *bfad, enum bfad_sm_event event);
>> +bfad_sm_initializing(struct bfad_s *bfad, enum bfad_sm_event);
>>  static void
>> -bfad_sm_operational(struct bfad_s *bfad, enum bfad_sm_event event);
>> +bfad_sm_operational(struct bfad_s *bfad, enum bfad_sm_event);
>>  static void
>> -bfad_sm_stopping(struct bfad_s *bfad, enum bfad_sm_event event);
>> +bfad_sm_stopping(struct bfad_s *bfad, enum bfad_sm_event);
>>  static void
>> -bfad_sm_failed(struct bfad_s *bfad, enum bfad_sm_event event);
>> +bfad_sm_failed(struct bfad_s *bfad, enum bfad_sm_event);
>>  static void
>> -bfad_sm_fcs_exit(struct bfad_s *bfad, enum bfad_sm_event event);
>> +bfad_sm_fcs_exit(struct bfad_s *bfad, enum bfad_sm_event);
>
> This bit doesn't seem needed? i.e. why remove the prototype's argument
> names?

Right, my mistake. I went through a few revisions and first tried to
change the prototypes here, but later changed them back. I missed
this after I folded my intermediate steps back into a single patch.

    Arnd