From fb54b703c7e6cfda05991fbe7e6f292fc82c4a27 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: rail <12975677+rail-rain@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 17:50:54 +1200
Subject: [PATCH] Add a note on the issue #5953

---
 clippy_lints/src/pass_by_ref_or_value.rs | 8 ++++++++
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)

diff --git a/clippy_lints/src/pass_by_ref_or_value.rs b/clippy_lints/src/pass_by_ref_or_value.rs
index 9a5b1c3b9442a..48b1d2b94a17e 100644
--- a/clippy_lints/src/pass_by_ref_or_value.rs
+++ b/clippy_lints/src/pass_by_ref_or_value.rs
@@ -41,6 +41,14 @@ declare_clippy_lint! {
     /// false positives in cases involving multiple lifetimes that are bounded by
     /// each other.
     ///
+    /// Also, it does not take account of other similar cases where getting memory addresses
+    /// matters; namely, returning the pointer to the argument in question,
+    /// and passing the argument, as both references and pointers,
+    /// to a function that needs the memory address. For further details, refer to
+    /// [this issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/5953)
+    /// that explains a real case in which this false positive
+    /// led to an **undefined behaviour** introduced with unsafe code.
+    ///
     /// **Example:**
     ///
     /// ```rust