linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V7 4/4] dmaengine: qcom_hidma: add MSI support for interrupts

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 24 Oct 2016 07:07:19 -0400
From:   okaya@...eaurora.org
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     dmaengine <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>,
        Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>,
        Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
        Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...eaurora.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 4/4] dmaengine: qcom_hidma: add MSI support for
 interrupts

On 2016-10-24 03:30, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org> 
> wrote:
>> On 10/21/2016 12:11 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>> +static void hidma_free_msis(struct hidma_dev *dmadev)
>>>> > +{
>>>> > +#ifdef CONFIG_GENERIC_MSI_IRQ_DOMAIN
>>> Perhaps one #ifdef and two definitions of functions?
>> 
>> I don't think it will make a difference. I'll have to move
>> #ifdef around the caller of hidma_free_msis instead which
>> I think is uglier.
>> 
>> The hidma_write_msi_msg function gets called only when
>> CONFIG_GENERIC_MSI_IRQ_DOMAIN is defined. If I don't put
>> this around the function definition, I get unused function
>> warning from the compiler. This is the reason why preprocessor
>> definition is outside of the function definition.
> 
> I am talking about something like below:
> 
> #ifdef UGLY_DEFINE
> myfunc_a()
> {
> }
> 
> myfunc_b()
> {
> }
> #else
> static inline myfunc_a() {}
> static inline myfunc_b() {}
> #endif
> 
> 
> There is another way as well, namely use of IS_ENABLED(), IS_BUILTIN()
> macros (I don't remember how exactly second one is spelt).


This was my initial approach. I was asked to remove the stub functions. 
So, I did it.