[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150521221117.GA69587@jaegeuk-mac02.mot.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 15:11:17 -0700
From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
To: Andreas Ruprecht <andreas.ruprecht@....de>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Uday Savagaonkar <savagaon@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>,
Valentin Rothberg <valentinrothberg@...il.com>,
Stefan Hengelein <stefan.hengelein@....de>
Subject: Re: Unnecessary #ifdef in commit c863114122ac
Hi Andreas,
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 12:59:03PM +0200, Andreas Ruprecht wrote:
> Hi Jaegeuk,
>
> your commit c863114122ac ("f2fs crypto: add symlink encryption") showed
> up in linux-next today (i.e., next-20150521). I noticed it because we
> run a daily analysis on linux-next, checking for inconsistencies
> regarding #ifdef blocks [0,1].
>
> In the commit, you create nested #ifdef blocks like the following:
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_F2FS_FS_ENCRYPTION
> [...]
> #ifdef CONFIG_F2FS_FS_XATTR
> [...]
> #endif
> [...]
> #endif
>
> The inner #ifdef, however, is unnecessary as CONFIG_F2FS_FS_XATTR is
> defined with a dependency on CONFIG_F2FS_FS_ENCRYPTION (line 78 in the
> corresponding Kconfig file at fs/f2fs/Kconfig).
>
> This means, CONFIG_F2FS_FS_XATTR can never be disabled if
> CONFIG_F2FS_FS_ENCRYPTION is enabled, and that the inner #ifdef can
> safely be removed.
>
> Do you want me to send a patch for this or do you want to do this yourself?
Agreed.
Let me please fix this in the original patch.
Thanks,
>
> Best regards,
>
> Andreas
>
> [0] https://cados.cs.fau.de
> [1] http://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/2014/ocw/proposals/1863
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists