linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] cpufreq: Use existing stub functions instead of IS

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: <20190624090845.tstzw6cruzsz5www@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Mon, 24 Jun 2019 14:38:45 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc:     edubezval@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        "open list:CPU FREQUENCY SCALING FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] cpufreq: Use existing stub functions instead of
 IS_ENABLED macro

On 24-06-19, 10:53, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> 
> Hi Viresh,
> 
> On 21/06/2019 15:22, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > The functions stub already exist for the condition the IS_ENABLED
> > is trying to avoid.
> > 
> > Remove the IS_ENABLED macros as they are pointless.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
> 
> what about this one?

I didn't say something because Rafael already pointed out something
which he wanted. Actually he was the one who suggested it to Amit
initially.

http://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAJZ5v0huESFqOADqyym-ci-XcWpL4tbcd9a-jxe_KArXKpHFyw@mail.gmail.com

-- 
viresh