linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V7 03/11] pci, of: Move the PCI I/O space management to PCI core code.

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, 11 May 2016 13:01:18 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Tomasz Nowicki <tn@...ihalf.com>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
	Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>, jchandra@...adcom.com,
	robert.richter@...iumnetworks.com, mw@...ihalf.com,
	Liviu.Dudau@....com, David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>,
	wangyijing@...wei.com,
	Suravee Suthikulanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>,
	Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
	Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>, andrea.gallo@...aro.org,
	dhdang@....com, jeremy.linton@....com, liudongdong3@...wei.com,
	Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 03/11] pci, of: Move the PCI I/O space management to PCI core code.

On Wednesday 11 May 2016 09:36:58 Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> >
> > I understand that this moves code around, but those in-function
> > #ifdefs aren't nice.  Any chance to get rid of them but putting whole
> > functions under the #ifdef?
> >
> 
> This is a __weak implementation, so assuming I would move #ifdef out of 
> function I need to provide another empty __weak stub. I do not know 
> which solution is more ugly. In any case we can do that cleanup separately.
> 

I'd vote for just dropping the __weak here, given that there is no
non-weak implementation. If we end up needing to override this for
some architecture or host bridge in the future, we can think about how
to best do that then.

I agree that should be a separate patch, this one should only move
code from one file to another.

	Arnd