linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] ext4: Remove compilation warnings in fs/ext4/mballoc.c

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:12:13 -0400
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	Manish Katiyar <mkatiyar@...il.com>
Cc:	ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Remove compilation warnings in fs/ext4/mballoc.c

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 03:33:02PM +0530, Manish Katiyar wrote:
> I think a cleaner fix would be to call these functions only when
> CONFIG_PROC_FS is set and cleanup EXT4_PROC_HANDLER to be always
> defined . Also since s_proc in sb only makes sense when procfs is
> configured should that also be ifdef'd in the structure itself ??
> Let me know if these cleanup can be done in a better way (or the way
> you would prefer :-) . I can do this.

What I put into the patch queue comments out all of
ext4_mb_init_per_dev_proc() and ext4_mb_destroy_per_dev_proc() if
CONFIG_PROC_FS is not defined.  This not the common case, (even "make
allnoconfig" leaves CONFIG_PROC_FS defined), so don't think it's worth
messing with #ifdef'ing the structure, and adding to add even more
#ifdef's into the code.  For a similar reason it's not worth it to add
#ifdef's to the call sites of these functions.  It just clutters the
code more, and gcc should be able to optimize out a call to an empty
static function anyway.

						- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html