linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci-esdhc-imx: avoid unused function warnings

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

Date:	Wed, 27 Jul 2016 00:48:23 +0200
From:	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	Dong Aisheng <aisheng.dong@....com>,
	Haibo Chen <haibo.chen@...escale.com>,
	linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci-esdhc-imx: avoid unused function warnings

On 26 July 2016 at 22:56, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 10:18:53 PM CEST Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-esdhc-imx.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-esdhc-imx.c
>> > index 2bb326bbc34a..593e34053c4b 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-esdhc-imx.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-esdhc-imx.c
>> > @@ -1293,13 +1293,12 @@ static int sdhci_esdhc_imx_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> >         return 0;
>> >  }
>> >
>> > -#ifdef CONFIG_PM
>> > -static int sdhci_esdhc_suspend(struct device *dev)
>> > +static int __maybe_unused sdhci_esdhc_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>
>> Instead of using __maybe_unused, I prefer to change above "#ifdef
>> CONFIG_PMf" to "#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP".
>> I do realize that the runtime PM callbacks still requires #ifdef
>> CONFIG_PM, so yes that's requires an extra "ifdef".
>>
>> Sure, it's more a matter of taste (and micro optimizations).
>
> I was hoping that we could eventually do a mass-conversion to
> __maybe_unused, as everybody seems to get the #ifdef wrong.
>
> Any specific reason for your preference?

Only that this is how I get used to do it - and that it becomes a bit
more clear what is needed to support the various PM configurations.

If you still insist on the "maybe_unused" option, that's okay as well.

Kind regards
Uffe