linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] efi: Export arch

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:	Wed, 26 Mar 2014 14:17:53 +0000
From:	"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To:	"Daniel Kiper" <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>
Cc:	<david.vrabel@...rix.com>, <ian.campbell@...rix.com>,
	<stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>, <jeremy@...p.org>,
	<fenghua.yu@...el.com>, <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	<tony.luck@...el.com>, <x86@...nel.org>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	<xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>, <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
	<konrad.wilk@...cle.com>, <eshelton@...ox.com>, <mingo@...hat.com>,
	<linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] efi: Export arch_tables variable

>>> On 26.03.14 at 15:08, <daniel.kiper@...cle.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 01:21:19PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 25.03.14 at 21:57, <daniel.kiper@...cle.com> wrote:
>> > Export arch_tables variable. Xen init function calls efi_config_init()
>> > which takes it as an argument.
>> >
>> > Additionally, put __initdata in place suggested by include/linux/init.h.
>>
>> Which isn't necessarily the most appropriate place.
> 
> Why? If comments in include/linux/init.h are not valid they should be 
> changed.

Because they can't go there uniformly: While on function declarations
you can put them there, on function definitions they need to come
before the function name. And placing attributes between type and
name does - iirc - work consistently for everything.

>> > --- a/include/linux/efi.h
>> > +++ b/include/linux/efi.h
>> > @@ -583,6 +583,8 @@ extern struct efi {
>> >  	struct efi_memory_map *memmap;
>> >  } efi;
>> >
>> > +extern efi_config_table_type_t arch_tables[] __initdata;
>>
>> And section placement annotations are bogus on declarations.
> 
> Hmmm... I am not sure which approach is better. I saw that
> in many places declarations have annotations. Could you
> point me some docs which states (and explains) that this
> is wrong idea.

Just use common sense: Attributes that are of concern to the
caller should go on the declaration. Attributes that only affect
code generation for the function/object in question should go on
the definition.

Jan

--
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/