linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] cpufreq: Use existing stub functions instead of IS

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, 24 Jun 2019 11:00:44 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        "open list:CPU FREQUENCY SCALING FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] cpufreq: Use existing stub functions instead of
 IS_ENABLED macro

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 10:53 AM Daniel Lezcano
<daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Viresh,
>
> On 21/06/2019 15:22, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > The functions stub already exist for the condition the IS_ENABLED
> > is trying to avoid.
> >
> > Remove the IS_ENABLED macros as they are pointless.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
>
> what about this one?

Care to respond to my question regarding this one in the first place, please?