linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: brcm80211: Make CFLAGS explicit

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: <20100917175838.GA20101@suse.de>
Date:	Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:58:38 -0700
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To:	Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@...onical.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Brett Rudley <brudley@...adcom.com>,
	Henry Ptasinski <henryp@...adcom.com>,
	Nohee Ko <noheek@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: brcm80211: Make CFLAGS explicit

On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:44:25AM -0600, Tim Gardner wrote:
> On 09/17/2010 10:21 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> >On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 09:20:10AM -0600, Tim Gardner wrote:
> >>Its too easy to confuse the obscurely named WLC_LOW/WLC_HIGH CFLAG
> >>macros.
> >
> >True, but doesn't this change how the code is being built?  Why make
> >this change?
> >
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Tim Gardner<tim.gardner@...onical.com>
> >>Cc: Brett Rudley<brudley@...adcom.com>
> >>Cc: Henry Ptasinski<henryp@...adcom.com>
> >>Cc: Nohee Ko<noheek@...adcom.com>
> >>---
> >>  drivers/staging/brcm80211/Makefile |    3 ++-
> >>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/drivers/staging/brcm80211/Makefile b/drivers/staging/brcm80211/Makefile
> >>index 05a4103..7a77e7f 100644
> >>--- a/drivers/staging/brcm80211/Makefile
> >>+++ b/drivers/staging/brcm80211/Makefile
> >>@@ -15,8 +15,9 @@
> >>  # OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN
> >>  # CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
> >>
> >>-EXTRA_CFLAGS := -DBCMDBG -DWLC_HIGH -DSTA -DWME -DWL11N -DDBAND -DBCMDMA32 -DBCMNVRAMR -Idrivers/staging/brcm80211/sys -Idrivers/staging/brcm80211/phy -Idrivers/staging/brcm80211/util -Idrivers/staging/brcm80211/include -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Werror -Wmissing-prototypes
> >>+EXTRA_CFLAGS := -DBCMDBG -DWME -DWL11N -DDBAND -DBCMDMA32 -DBCMNVRAMR -Idrivers/staging/brcm80211/sys -Idrivers/staging/brcm80211/phy -Idrivers/staging/brcm80211/util -Idrivers/staging/brcm80211/include -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Werror -Wmissing-prototypes
> >
> >how about 2 patches here, one to break it out into one flag per line so
> >we can see what is really happening here, and then one patch to make the
> >change you are asking for.
> >
> >>
> >>+USB_CFLAGS := -DWLC_HIGH
> >
> >Are you sure about this?  Why set this when I don't see anything ever
> >using it?
> >
> >What problem are you trying to fix here.
> >
> >totally confused,
> >
> >greg k-h
> >
> 
> Well, when groveling through the code you can see a bunch of '#ifdef
> WLC_HIGH_ONLY' which I initially assumed was defined because of
> '-DWLC_HIGH' in EXTRA_CFLAGS. This is quite misleading if you don't
> notice 'PCI_CFLAGS := -DWLC_LOW' a bit later in the Makefile (which
> I didn't for quite awhile). Specifying both macros in EXTRA_CFLAGS
> seems unnecessary.
> 
> The macro magic happens in brcm80211/sys/wlc_cfg.h:
> 
> /* Keep WLC_HIGH_ONLY, WLC_SPLIT for USB extension later on */
> #if !defined(WLC_LOW)
> #define WLC_HIGH_ONLY
> #endif
> #if !defined(WLC_LOW)
> #define WLC_SPLIT
> #endif
> 
> What does WLC_LOW and WLC_HIGH mean anyway?

Who knows, but why create USB_CFLAGS, as that's not used by anything.

Henry, Brett, Nohee?

--
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/