linux-kernel - Re: [greybus-dev] [PATCH] staging: greybus: mark PM functions as __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]

Date:   Fri, 19 May 2017 09:10:07 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Vaibhav Hiremath <hvaibhav.linux@...il.com>,
        Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, Alex Elder <elder@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [greybus-dev] [PATCH] staging: greybus: mark PM functions as
 __maybe_unused

On 18-05-17, 16:51, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> I find that a lot of users get the #ifdef wrong, either using the wrong
> macro (CONFIG_PM vs CONFIG_PM_SLEEP) or not using the right
> set of functions (e.g. calling a function only from the suspend handler).
> 
> The __maybe_unused annotation avoids both problems and also gives
> better build time coverage, so that's what I tend to use.

Thanks for the explanation Arnd. I hope these unused routines will not
be part of the binary that gets generated. Right?

Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>

-- 
viresh