linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 1/3] net: phy: prevent linking breakage

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]

Date:	Tue, 4 Jun 2013 17:09:26 +0100
From:	Florian Fainelli <florian@...nwrt.org>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"alexandre.belloni" <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
	kernel <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
	"shawn.guo" <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/3] net: phy: prevent linking breakage

2013/6/4 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>:
> On Tuesday 04 June 2013 16:36:50 Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> It seems to me that what David proposes is to have say an
>> arch/arm/mach-foo/phy-fixups.c file which is only enabled when
>> CONFIG_PHYLIB is set (obj-$(CONFIG_PHYLIB) += phy-fixup.o), such that
>> it does not need to have any conditionnals when calling
>> phy_register_fixup. This sounds a little unusual, but why not.
>
> I don't think it would actually help us, because then we still need
> to declare a local function that gets called from the board init
> code. Instead of doing
>
>         if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PHYLIB))
>                  phy_register_fixup_for_uid(phy_id, foo_phy_fixup);
>
> we would then do
>
>         if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PHYLIB))
>                 foo_phy_fixup_register();
>
> which is not much different at all.

You would just need to define a stub for your arch_foo_phy_fixup()
which has a different definition depending on whether CONFIG_PHYLIB is
defined or not.

This would be just one function, instead of the whole bunch of stubs
needed for phylib. Right now its probably 1 vs 3, so it does not make
that much of a difference but who knows, if we had more phylib stubs
and forget to update the stubs? (which tends to happen pretty often).

The size savings are exactly the same in both approaches anyway.
--
Florian
--
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/