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

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

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@xxxxxxxxxx/

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.