linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drivers/bus: arm-cci: fix build warnings

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 29 May 2018 16:42:08 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@....com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/bus: arm-cci: fix build warnings

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 04:34:01PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 28/05/18 16:41, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >When the arm-cci driver is enabled, but both CONFIG_ARM_CCI5xx_PMU and
> >CONFIG_ARM_CCI400_PMU are not, we get a warning about how parts of
> >the driver are never used:
> >
> >drivers/perf/arm-cci.c:1454:29: error: 'cci_pmu_models' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-variable]
> >drivers/perf/arm-cci.c:693:16: error: 'cci_pmu_event_show' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
> >drivers/perf/arm-cci.c:685:16: error: 'cci_pmu_format_show' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
> >
> >Marking all three functions as __maybe_unused avoids the warnings in
> >randconfig builds. I'm doing this lacking any ideas for a better fix.
> 
> Yeah, it's a bit of a silly configuration to allow building a driver
> supporting no PMU types, but I couldn't find a way to enforce "at least one
> sub-option enabled" logic without introducing mutually-exclusive
> dependencies which kbuild thinks are recursive.
> 
> An alternative would be to remove the CCI400/CCI5x0 configurability
> altogether - I've not not looked in detail at how much difference that
> actually makes.
> 
> Otherwise, as an immediate quick-fix:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>

I'll pick this one up into the arm perf tree.

Will