linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mmc: mediatek: mark PM functions as __maybe

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: <CAK8P3a0PvxT3B+4WYmbarLPY_uHbKL_z5Jd7WU=PZ79QXjtwOw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Dec 2020 15:55:05 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
To:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc:     Chaotian Jing <chaotian.jing@...iatek.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Wenbin Mei <wenbin.mei@...iatek.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Chun-Hung Wu <chun-hung.wu@...iatek.com>,
        yong mao <yong.mao@...iatek.com>,
        Amey Narkhede <ameynarkhede03@...il.com>,
        Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>,
        "linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" 
        <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: mediatek: mark PM functions as __maybe_unused

On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 3:38 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> wrote:
.
> >
> > I don't see a lot of other instances of that yet, and it's fairly new.
> > Maybe we should fix it before it gets propagated further.
> >
> > I would suggest we redefine pm_ptr like
> >
> > #define pm_ptr(_ptr) (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM) ? (_ptr) : NULL)
>
> Why is this better than the original definition?

It tells the compiler that the _ptr is referenced from here, so it does
not warn about an unused symbol, but at the same time it still
knows that it can discard it along with the functions referenced by
it and should not emit any of that output.

> > and remove the __maybe_unused annotations on those that we
> > already have. This also has the effect of dropping the unused
> > data from the object, but without having to an an #ifdef or
> > __maybe_unused.
>
> I didn't quite get this (sorry it's Friday afternoon... getting
> tired), can you perhaps give a concrete example?

These work:

a)
static const struct dev_pm_ops __maybe_unused ops = { ... };
...
      .ops = &ops,
...

b)
static const struct dev_pm_ops ops = { ... };
...
      .ops = &ops,
...

c)
#ifdef CONFIG_PM
static const struct dev_pm_ops ops = { ... };
#endif
...
#ifdef CONFIG_PM
     .ops = ops,
#endif
...

d)
static const struct dev_pm_ops __maybe_unused ops = { ... };
...
#ifdef CONFIG_PM
     .ops = ops,
#endif
...

e)
static const struct dev_pm_ops ops = { ... };
...
     .ops = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM) ? ops : NULL,
...

But these do not work:

f)
#ifdef CONFIG_PM
static const struct dev_pm_ops ops = { ... };
#endif
...
/* error: missing declaration for ops */
     .ops = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM) ? ops : NULL,
...

g)
static struct dev_pm_ops ops = { ... };
...
/* warning: unused variable */
#ifndef CONFIG_PM
     .ops = NULL,
#else
    .ops = ops,
#endif
...

       Arnd