linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net 1/3] cpsw/netcp: cpts depends on posix

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]

Message-ID: <CAK8P3a3N6p6YfP+6Q7KQ-Sv5sPKfJZT2Bf3vJw9bzPAjGTr17g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Mar 2017 17:55:54 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, WingMan Kwok <w-kwok2@...com>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/3] cpsw/netcp: cpts depends on posix_timers

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 7:18 PM, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
>> With posix timers having become optional, we get a build error with
>> the cpts time sync option of the CPSW driver:
>>
>> drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpts.c: In function 'cpts_find_ts':
>> drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpts.c:291:23: error: implicit declaration of function 'ptp_classify_raw';did you mean 'ptp_classifier_init'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>
>> It really makes no sense to build this driver if we can't use PTP,
>> so it's better to go back to 'select PTP_1588_CLOCK' but instead
>> add a dependency on POSIX_TIMERS.
>
> Why not depend on PTP_1588_CLOCK directly instead?

Sorry for dropping the ball on this. I just noticed my two patches in my patch
are still required, so I'm resending them now.

I think using 'select' here is better for consistency as we use 'imply'
elsewhere, and mixing the two might cause circular dependencies.

If you still have concerns about this, please follow up on the resend.

      Arnd