linux-kernel - Re: Long delay in resume from RAM (Was Re: [patch 00/69] -stablereview)

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]

Message-Id: <20070524142126.88e89900.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 24 May 2007 14:21:26 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc:	Romano Giannetti <romano.giannetti@...il.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
	Justin Forbes <jmforbes@...uxtx.org>,
	Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@....linux.org.uk>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Chuck Wolber <chuckw@...ntumlinux.com>,
	Chris Wedgwood <reviews@...cw.f00f.org>,
	Michael Krufky <mkrufky@...uxtv.org>, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: Long delay in resume from RAM (Was Re: [patch 00/69]
 -stablereview)

On Thu, 24 May 2007 23:12:37 +0200
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> wrote:

> On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 02:01:54PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 May 2007 22:14:08 +0200
> > Romano Giannetti <romano.giannetti@...il.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Compiling now. I had lost a lot of time because at first try it stopped
> > > in ntfs:
> > > 
> > >   CC [M]  fs/ntfs/super.o
> > > fs/ntfs/super.c: In function ___init_ntfs_fs___:
> > > fs/ntfs/super.c:3152: error: expected ___)___ before ___NTFS_VERSION___
> > > fs/ntfs/super.c: At top level:
> > > fs/ntfs/super.c:3262: error: expected ___,___ or ___;___ before ___NTFS_VERSION___
> > > make[2]: *** [fs/ntfs/super.o] Error 1
> > > make[1]: *** [fs/ntfs] Error 2
> > > make: *** [fs] Error 2
> > >   
> > > I suppose because NTFS_VERSION were defined as EXTRA_CFLAGS too in the Makefile, 
> > 
> > ntfs is being naughty.
> > 
> > --- a/fs/ntfs/Makefile~a
> > +++ a/fs/ntfs/Makefile
> > @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ ntfs-objs := aops.o attrib.o collate.o c
> >  	     index.o inode.o mft.o mst.o namei.o runlist.o super.o sysctl.o \
> >  	     unistr.o upcase.o
> >  
> > -EXTRA_CFLAGS = -DNTFS_VERSION=\"2.1.28\"
> > +EXTRA_CFLAGS += -DNTFS_VERSION=\"2.1.28\"
> >  
> >  ifeq ($(CONFIG_NTFS_DEBUG),y)
> >  EXTRA_CFLAGS += -DDEBUG
> > _
> > 
> > 
> > akpm:/usr/src/linux-2.6.22-rc2> grep -r EXTRA_CFLAGS . | fgrep '+=' | wc -l 
> > 131
> > akpm:/usr/src/linux-2.6.22-rc2> grep -r EXTRA_CFLAGS . | fgrep -v '+=' | wc -l 
> > 55
> > 
> > hm, lots of Makefiles commit the same sin.  Sam, is this as busted as
> > I think it is?
> 
> I really cannot see why it makes a difference.
> If you use += (and :=) make will resolve EXTRA_CFLAGS when it see it.
> Whereas with = make will resolve it only when actually referenced.

It's not a matter of when it's evaluated.  The user is supposed to be
able to set EXTRA_CFLAGS on the command-line, yes?  If they do that then
the "=" in there will rub out their efforts.  The makefiles should be
appending new things to EXTRA_CFLAGS, rather than doing a replacement?


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/