linux-kernel - Re: unneeded internal declaration

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]

Message-ID: <CAH7mPvgYREBRHY=2=HXOAg=v2SfLMCdO8gDkYTPsY+oRMCKMBA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 25 Sep 2017 21:15:42 -0700
From:   Nick Desaulniers <nick.desaulniers@...il.com>
To:     Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        kay@...y.org, avi@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: unneeded internal declaration

Good find, will send a patch with your suggestion.  The documentation
for x86_match_cpu() says:

 25  * Arrays used to match for this should also be declared using
 26  * MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(x86cpu, ...)

Will save another patch for a friend, then.

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:35 PM, Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 08:07:41PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>> today I noticed I was getting the warning:
>>
>> arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c:64:32: warning: variable 'vmx_cpu_id' is not needed
>> and will not be emitted [-Wunneeded-internal-declaration]
>>
>> seems like this was added in commit: e9bda3b3d0ce7 "KVM: VMX:
>> Auto-load on CPUs with VMX"
>>
>> seems like other call sites of the MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE typically get
>> added to an id_table of various driver structs.  Should that be the
>> case here, or would a `__unused` modifier be a way forward (if so,
>> please confirm, would be a good first bug for a friend)?
>
> Many of those users seem to have an x86_match_cpu call in their init
> function. vmx has its own checks; perhaps it'd make sense to use that
> instead, which would also eliminate the warning?