linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/7] iommu/arm-smmu: Allow building as a module

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: <20191107124819.GB12385@willie-the-truck>
Date:   Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:48:20 +0000
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     "Isaac J. Manjarres" <isaacm@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] iommu/arm-smmu: Allow building as a module

Hi Isaac,

On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 11:34:00AM -0800, Isaac J. Manjarres wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 02:51:12PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-impl.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-impl.c
> > index 5c87a38620c4..2f82d40317d6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-impl.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-impl.c
> > @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
> >  #define pr_fmt(fmt) "arm-smmu: " fmt
> >  
> >  #include <linux/bitfield.h>
> > +#include <linux/module.h>
> >  #include <linux/of.h>
> >  
> >  #include "arm-smmu.h"
> > @@ -172,3 +173,8 @@ struct arm_smmu_device *arm_smmu_impl_init(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> >  
> >  	return smmu;
> >  }
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(arm_smmu_impl_init);
> > +
> > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("IOMMU quirks for ARM architected SMMU implementations");
> > +MODULE_AUTHOR("Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>");
> > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
> 
> A minor comment: I was curious about why arm-smmu.c and arm-smmu-impl.c
> were being compiled as two separate modules, as opposed to combining
> them into one module? The latter approach seemed more appropriate, given
> that arm-smmu-impl doesn't offer much as a module on its own. Thoughts?

Yes, you're right. The simple answer is that I couldn't come up with a good
name for the combined module, since "arm-smmu" is already taken by the core
part of the driver and I don't want to rename that file. Looking at what a
few other drivers do, it seems that "arm-smmu-mod" might be the best bet
so I'll incorporate that change for v2 and put you on cc.

Thanks!

Will