linux-kernel - Re: [net:master 1/9] pch_gbe_main.c:(.text+0x510370): undefined reference to `pch_ch_control

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: <50706885.1030908@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Sun, 07 Oct 2012 01:21:09 +0800
From:	Haicheng Li <haicheng.li@...ux.intel.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	fengguang.wu@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net:master 1/9] pch_gbe_main.c:(.text+0x510370): undefined reference
 to `pch_ch_control_write'



On 10/06/2012 10:21 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Haicheng Li<haicheng.li@...ux.intel.com>
> Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2012 22:07:23 +0800
>
>> On 10/06/2012 09:22 PM, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Haicheng Li<haicheng.li@...ux.intel.com>
>>> Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2012 20:07:08 +0800
>>>
>>>> The failure is due to the CONFIG_PPS is not set there, consequently
>>>> CONFIG_PTP_1588_CLOCK can not be set as =y anyway.
>>>>
>>>> So David's patch of "da1586461e53a4dd045738cce309ab488970f0ef [1/9]
>>>> pch_gbe: Fix PTP dependencies" is buggy. Furthermore, I think using
>>>> "selects" to resolve such dependency issue is not good idea as it
>>>> won't visit the dependencies.
>>>>
>>>> David, I would still suggest to take my original patch:
>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/28/70
>>>>
>>>> + depends on PTP_1588_CLOCK_PCH&&   (PCH_GBE=m || PTP_1588_CLOCK_PCH=y)
>>>>
>>>> or simply like:
>>>
>>> This is all very rediculous if you ask me.
>>>
>>> Why should the user have to know a detail like the underlying
>>> PTP chip type just to enable PTP on his networking card?
>>>
>>> Because that is what you are making him do with your change.
>>>
>>> Select removed the necessity of the user having to know these
>>> things.
>> However it possibly breaks the build...
>>
>> IMHO, the reason why the dependency of PCH_PTP becomes so tricky is
>> that the code of these two modules call the functions of each other
>> (bad code structure?). To fix it neatly, either we restructure the
>> code or just simply make it:
>> + depends on PTP_1588_CLOCK_PCH=y
>>
>> For PCH_GBE=m case, it does be able to pass the build test, but I'm
>> afraid it won't be smoothly workable via "insmod" due to the
>> codependency of these two when PCH_PTP is enabled.
>
> Then why does it work for IXGBE and others who use select?

They explicitly select all the possible dependencies if they are bug-free (I 
didn't strictly check them).

Take IXGBE_PTP as example, it explicitly selects PPS, and also depends on 
EXPERIMENTAL:
config IXGBE_PTP
         bool "PTP Clock Support"
         default n
         depends on IXGBE && EXPERIMENTAL
         select PPS
         select PTP_1588_CLOCK

So if you stick to use "select" as the convention of such build issue fixing, 
fengguang's build failure would be fixed by:
	+ depends on EXPERIMENTAL
	+ select PPS
	+ select PTP_1588_CLOCK

would you prefer this way?

--
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/