linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/14] dma: sirf: use __maybe

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: <20160304150205.GZ11154@localhost>
Date:	Fri, 4 Mar 2016 20:32:05 +0530
From:	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/14] dma: sirf: use __maybe_unused to hide pm functions

On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 01:33:17PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 03 March 2016 09:17:31 Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 04:58:58PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > The sirf dma driver uses #ifdef to check for CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> > > for its suspend/resume code but then has no #ifdef for the
> > > respective runtime PM code, so we get a warning if CONFIG_PM
> > > is disabled altogether:
> > > 
> > > drivers/dma/sirf-dma.c:1000:12: error: 'sirfsoc_dma_runtime_resume' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
> > > 
> > > This removes the existing #ifdef and instead uses __maybe_unused
> > > annotations for all four functions to let the compiler know it
> > > can silently drop the function definition.
> > 
> > Hi Arnd,
> > 
> > Rather than telling compiler that this maybe used why not add ifdef for it's
> > suspend/resume as well, what are the demerits of that approach?
> > 
> 
> As I tried to explain in the cover letter, everyone gets the #ifdef
> wrong, and the __maybe_unused annotation is harder to get wrong here.
> 
> This particular driver illustrates that well: sirfsoc_dma_remove()
> calls sirfsoc_dma_runtime_suspend(), so we must hide the
> resume function, but not suspend, and that is counterintuitive.
> 
> Other drivers have other problems, e.g. functions that get called
> only from within the sections under an #ifdef, and then those
> need the same #ifdef added, which gets even more complicated when
> you have both runtime-pm and suspend support.

Thanks, applied now after fixing subsystem name

-- 
~Vinod