linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] proc: centralise declaration of cpuinfo

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:   Fri, 11 Oct 2019 14:43:32 +0100
From:   Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...ts.codethink.co.uk,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
        Aurelien Jacquiot <jacquiot.aurelien@...il.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-c6x-dev@...ux-c6x.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
        sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: centralise declaration of cpuinfo_op

On 09/10/2019 18:51, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 12:39:30PM +0100, Ben Dooks wrote:
>> When building for arm, cpuinfo_op generates a warning due
>> to no declaration. Since this is used in fs/proc/cpuinfo.c
>> and inconsitently declared across archiectures move the
>> declaration info <linux/seq_file.h>. This means that the
>> cpuinfo_op will have a declaration any place it is used.
>>
>> Removes the following sparse warning:
>>
>> arch/arm/kernel/setup.c:1320:29: warning: symbol 'cpuinfo_op' was not declared. Should it be static?
> 
> I like the consolidation, but I don't think seq_file.h is the right
> place.  A procfs or cpu topology related header seems like the better
> choice.

Ok, thanks.

I'll have a look at where else it could go, but I'm not sure if I have
the resources to build /all/ kernels that this would effect.

-- 
Ben Dooks				http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Senior Engineer				Codethink - Providing Genius

https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html