linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] drivers/pci: use builtin_platform

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 18 Jan 2016 23:19:44 -0500
From:	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
To:	Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Phil Edworthy <phil.edworthy@...esas.com>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
	Valentine Barshak <valentine.barshak@...entembedded.com>,
	<linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] drivers/pci: use builtin_platform_driver in renesas

[Re: [PATCH 0/2] drivers/pci: use builtin_platform_driver in renesas] On 08/01/2016 (Fri 14:37) Bjorn Helgaas wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 07:59:07PM -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> > These two commits are extracted from what was a larger series[1] of
> > demodularization in PCI host code that was bool Kconfig.
> > 
> > With the other commits, there was some mixed opinions whether we
> > should make it explicitly non-modular or move towards making it
> > functionally working as a tristate in order to reduce the size of
> > built-in code for multi-platform kernels.
> > 
> > However with the renesas changes, there was no ".remove" and no
> > "module_exit" code stripped out ; it is just a straight 1:1 mapping
> > of the modular macros onto what they become in the non-modular case
> > anyway -- meaning the runtime remains unchanged.
> 
> Is there any reason these drivers can't be made modular?  I'd rather
> do that, if we can.

Per the above comments, the renesas drivers were a no-op and and got
Ack:  from appropriate people hence why I forked them out of the earlier
bigger series, in thinking they were OK'd and done as-is.

That said, if "be modular, or die trying" is the desired approach for
PCI code, I can do my best to work within that constraint.  It just
won't be the no-op 1:1 mapping that the original proposed changes were.

P.
--

> 
> Bjorn