linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] pm: Move nvs routines into a seperate file.

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: <20090611232224.GB18682@elf.ucw.cz>
Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 2009 01:22:25 +0200
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pm: Move nvs routines into a seperate file.

> > > > > Other architectures will see this build error:
> > > > > 
> > > > > drivers/built-in.o: In function `sysdev_suspend':
> > > > > (.text+0x15138): undefined reference to `check_wakeup_irqs'
> > > > > drivers/built-in.o: In function `device_power_up':
> > > > > (.text+0x1cb66): undefined reference to `resume_device_irqs'
> > > > > drivers/built-in.o: In function `device_power_down':
> > > > > (.text+0x1cb92): undefined reference to `suspend_device_irqs'
> > > > > 
> > > > > To fix this add some empty inline functions for !GENERIC_HARDIRQS.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't think that's right fix. If architecture does not use
> > > > GENERIC_HARDIRQS, it may want to implement *_device_irqs()
> > > > itself. Before your patch, it could, after your patch, it can not.
> > > > 
> > > > Better put those empty functions in arch/s390/include?
> > > 
> > > If any of the affected architectures wants to implement *_device_irqs()
> > > itself, it can do the appropriate change in future.  For now, let's not break
> > > compilation on them, shall we?
> > 
> > Well, if one of those architectures will want to implement
> > *_device_irqs(), it will have to either modify s390, and all other
> > !GENERIC_HARDIRQS architectures.
> 
> Why will it?  I think it will be sufficient to modify the header changed by
> this patch and the architecture in question.

Hmm, how? Putting #ifndef MY_ARCH into generic header? Inventing
CONFIG_NON_GENERIC_HARDIRQS_BUT_I_NEED_DEVICE_IRQS?
									Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/