linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] iommu/amd: Add basic debugfs infrastructure for AMD IOMMU

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: <4041cb33-19a2-5542-4211-1dce51de5e40@amd.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 May 2018 10:20:39 -0500
From:   Gary R Hook <gary.hook@....com>
To:     Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Cc:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] iommu/amd: Add basic debugfs infrastructure for
 AMD IOMMU

On 05/15/2018 08:46 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 03:00:50PM -0500, Gary R Hook wrote:
>> This was brought up a few weeks ago in, I believe, version 3 of this patch.
>> That question was discussed (because that's what I did the first time out),
>> and _someone_ _else_ asked about why I didn't just do it the way I've done
>> it here.
> 
> You don't have this problem if you put the code in amd_iommu.c in an
> IOMMU_DEBUGFS ifdef.

Of course. My preference, however, is a separate file to avoid size 
creep. That's why I've done it this way.

To whit: there have been threads discussing the 
advisability/acceptability of using #ifdefs for debug code. My take-away 
was to avoid them. Perhaps I misunderstood.

So: I don't understand your comment. Is this an observation, or is it an 
imperative statement? I'd like for a maintainer to clearly indicate what 
is acceptable, and I'll do it.