linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: use of_mdio_parse

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, 7 Jun 2017 13:54:16 -0700
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Jon Mason <jon.mason@...adcom.com>, Liviu Dudau <liviu@...au.co.uk>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        BCM Kernel Feedback <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: use of_mdio_parse_addr

On 06/07/2017 01:53 PM, Jon Mason wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Liviu Dudau <liviu@...au.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 02:22:51PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Jon Mason <jon.mason@...adcom.com>
>>> Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 15:43:30 -0400
>>>
>>>> use of_mdio_parse_addr() in place of an OF read of reg and a bounds
>>>> check (which is litterally the exact same thing that
>>>> of_mdio_parse_addr() does)
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jon Mason <jon.mason@...adcom.com>
>>>
>>> Applied, thanks Jon.
>>
>> This makes linux-next fail the modules_install target as depmod detects 2 circular
>> dependencies. Reverting this patch fixes the issue.
>>
>> depmod: ERROR: Cycle detected: libphy -> of_mdio -> fixed_phy -> libphy
>> depmod: ERROR: Cycle detected: libphy -> of_mdio -> libphy
>> depmod: ERROR: Found 3 modules in dependency cycles!
>> make[1]: *** [/home/dliviu/devel/kernel/Makefile:1245: _modinst_post] Error 1
> 
> I did not test this as modules.  Sorry.
> 
> It would be ugly to duplicate the code in both place, and the code in
> question does not seem to really need to be in a C file.  Perhaps it
> can be moved to a header file as an inline function, which would solve
> this dependency.  Would this be acceptable?

You read my mind, was just going to suggest doing that.
-- 
Florian