linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] gpio: remove less important #ifdef around declarations

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

Message-ID: <CACRpkdYSDT3pQzNTiHoDdtwMQn32jZ83Q71G=soQ1ycdg+F1ag@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Jul 2019 00:30:09 +0200
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Cc:     "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: remove less important #ifdef around declarations

On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 4:31 AM Masahiro Yamada
<yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:

> The whole struct/function declarations in this header are surrounded
> by #ifdef.
>
> As far as I understood, the motivation of doing so is probably to break
> the build earlier if a driver misses to select or depend on correct
> CONFIG options in Kconfig.
>
> Since commit 94bed2a9c4ae ("Add -Werror-implicit-function-declaration")
> no one cannot call functions that have not been declared.
>
> So, I see some benefit in doing this in the cost of uglier headers.
>
> In reality, it would not be so easy to catch missed 'select' or
> 'depends on' because GPIOLIB, GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP etc. are already selected
> by someone else eventually. So, this kind of error, if any, will be
> caught by randconfig bots.
>
> In summary, I am not a big fan of cluttered #ifdef nesting, and this
> does not matter for normal developers. The code readability wins.
>
> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>

Hm I guess you're right.

This patch does not apply cleanly on v5.3-rc1, could you rebase it
and resend?

Yours,
Linus Walleij