linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/7] PCI/ATS: Initialize PRI in pci_ats

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]

Date:   Thu, 1 Aug 2019 15:26:52 -0600
From:   Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
To:     sathyanarayanan kuppuswamy 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     bhelgaas@...gle.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ashok.raj@...el.com,
        keith.busch@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/7] PCI/ATS: Initialize PRI in pci_ats_init()

On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 02:21:07PM -0700, sathyanarayanan kuppuswamy wrote:
> On 8/1/19 2:09 PM, Keith Busch wrote:
> > Rather than surround the call to pci_pri_init() with the #ifdef, you
> > should provide an empty function implementation when CONFIG_PCI_PRI is
> > not defined. Same thing for the next patch adding PASID.
>
> This function is defined and used in the same file (ats.c). Is there any
> advantage in defining an empty function ? But if this is the recommended
> approach, I can make the necessary changes. Please confirm.

That way is just the existing convention, so it's recommended for
kernel style consistency. See the "Conditional Compilation" section in
Documentation/process/coding-style.rst (currently section 21).