linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 01/13] ARM: move cputype definitions into another file

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

Message-ID: <CAGb2v67RduaktYimLAuFwYB=Q8qD8f3AbZmoX5QssAGDtWwS6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 Apr 2018 15:34:21 +0800
From:   Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>
To:     Mylène Josserand <mylene.josserand@...tlin.com>
Cc:     Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        LABBE Corentin <clabbe.montjoie@...il.com>,
        quentin.schulz@...tlin.com,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/13] ARM: move cputype definitions into another file

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 3:27 PM, Mylène Josserand
<mylene.josserand@...tlin.com> wrote:
> Hi Chen-Yu,
>
> Thank you for your review!
>
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 14:52:45 +0800
> Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Mylène Josserand
>> <mylene.josserand@...tlin.com> wrote:
>> > To add the support for SMP on sun8i-a83t, we will use some
>> > definitions in an assembly file so move definitions into
>> > another file to separate C functions and macro defintions.
>>
>> Instead of moving the definitions, you could guard all the C
>> stuff in "#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__". AFAIK a few header files do that.
>
> Oh, right. It is better with this check so I will use that in the next
> iteration of my series.

I'm not sure about the policy, but I kind of assume any header under
"asm" would be usable in assembly files, so the guard would be better.

ChenYu