linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mmc: sunxi: mark PM functions as __maybe

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:   Mon, 28 May 2018 13:13:29 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc:     Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
        "linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: sunxi: mark PM functions as __maybe_unused

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 1:04 PM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 25 May 2018 at 23:07, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>> The newly added runtime-pm functions cause a harmless warning
>> when CONFIG_PM is disabled:
>>
>> drivers/mmc/host/sunxi-mmc.c:1452:12: error: 'sunxi_mmc_runtime_suspend' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
>>  static int sunxi_mmc_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>             ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> drivers/mmc/host/sunxi-mmc.c:1435:12: error: 'sunxi_mmc_runtime_resume' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
>>  static int sunxi_mmc_runtime_resume(struct device *dev)
>>
>> This marks them as __maybe_unused to shut up the warning.
>
> Most mmc drivers uses #ifdef CONFIG_PM instead of the __maybe_unused() option.
>
> It's not a big deal, but consistency is always good. Would you mind changing?

I'd prefer not to. Most uses of #ifdef CONFIG_PM that get introduced are wrong,
and cause additional randconfig warnings that I end up having to fix,
so I always
do it with __maybe_unused.

I don't mind if you treat my patch as a bug report and decide to fix
it differently
yourself, but you won't get that patch from me ;-)

       Arnd