linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mmc: sunxi: 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]

Message-ID: <CAHp75VffA5Q2VxgkQqT6M_iLwZtv46Gy5Fz4Fx7PA9CvRnX0Ag@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 May 2018 15:12:37 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>
Cc:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
        "linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: sunxi: mark PM functions as __maybe_unused

+Cc: Jean

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 2:13 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 1:04 PM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> wrote:
>> On 25 May 2018 at 23:07, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>>> The newly added runtime-pm functions cause a harmless warning
>>> when CONFIG_PM is disabled:
>>>
>>> drivers/mmc/host/sunxi-mmc.c:1452:12: error: 'sunxi_mmc_runtime_suspend' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
>>>  static int sunxi_mmc_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>>             ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> drivers/mmc/host/sunxi-mmc.c:1435:12: error: 'sunxi_mmc_runtime_resume' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
>>>  static int sunxi_mmc_runtime_resume(struct device *dev)
>>>
>>> This marks them as __maybe_unused to shut up the warning.
>>
>> Most mmc drivers uses #ifdef CONFIG_PM instead of the __maybe_unused() option.
>>
>> It's not a big deal, but consistency is always good. Would you mind changing?
>
> I'd prefer not to. Most uses of #ifdef CONFIG_PM that get introduced are wrong,
> and cause additional randconfig warnings that I end up having to fix,
> so I always
> do it with __maybe_unused.

Some of the maintainers have strong objection against such changes.
http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1805.1/06100.html

It seems we might have a split in the opinions, which is not good in
this case (consistency for PM callbacks overall will be broken).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko