Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: Fix different base types in assignments and parameters

[Fabio M. De Francesco]

On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 9:59:30 AM CEST Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 08:14:52PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> >  static inline void __nat25_generate_ipx_network_addr_with_socket(unsigned 
char
> >  *networkAddr,> 
> > -				unsigned int *ipxNetAddr, 
unsigned short *ipxSocketAddr)
> >
> > [...]
> >
> Here is another bug which was obscured/caused by the union.
> 
> 	addr.f0 = be16_to_cpu(*ipxSocketAddr);
> 
> The addr.f0 variable is an int.  On big endian systems only the last two
> bytes are set:
> 
> 	memcpy(networkAddr+5, addr.f1, 2);
> 
> So this is the equivalent of:
> 
> 	memset(networkAddr+5, 0, 2);
> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter

Dear Dan,

Thanks, for pointing me to one more bug I introduced with this patch. The most 
of them were due to me forgetting that memcpy() takes pointers. For some 
reason I was thinking it takes values, therefore I put in it a lot of 
unnecessary and faulty complications.

I'd like to make a new patch, a better one (I hope), without unneeded unions 
without the other wrong lines that are in the commit 56febcc2595e.

However, I see that Greg hasn't yet had the time to revert the above commit, 
so I don't know how to make a new patch.

I mean: I could (1) either wait for Greg to revert it and then to fix the 
sparse warnings with a new patch, or (2) I could fix the bugs I made in 
56febcc2595e without having it reverted. I would prefer the solution (2) with 
a "Fixes: 56febcc2595e (...)" and a "Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <...>" tags.

What is the best solution between the two above?

Thanks,

Fabio