linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 20/27] Initconst section fixes for SCSI

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: <1316117927.2983.74.camel@dabdike.hansenpartnership.com>
Date:	Thu, 15 Sep 2011 20:18:48 +0000
From:	James Bottomley <jbottomley@...allels.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/27] Initconst section fixes for SCSI

On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 13:09 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>

I don't know why you're doing this without a description (and please cc
at least linux-scsi on SCSI patches).

> Cc: JBottomley@...allels.com
> Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/scsi/aacraid/linit.c        |    2 +-
>  drivers/scsi/aic94xx/aic94xx_init.c |    2 +-
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/aacraid/linit.c b/drivers/scsi/aacraid/linit.c
> index 3382475..9c8d000 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/aacraid/linit.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/aacraid/linit.c
> @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ static DECLARE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE(aac_pci_tbl) = {
>  #elif defined(__devinitconst)
>  static const struct pci_device_id aac_pci_tbl[] __devinitconst = {
>  #else
> -static const struct pci_device_id aac_pci_tbl[] __devinitdata = {
> +static const struct pci_device_id aac_pci_tbl[] __devinitconst = {

How can this possibly be correct?  You just checked in the preceding
#elif defined() that __devinitconst wasn't defined for this leg, so if
it's taken there'll be an instant compile failure.

If you want to argue the whole of the #ifdef construct should be removed
then I'd be interested.

James