linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] if_enabled.h: Add IF_ENABLED_OR_ELSE() and IF

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]

Date:   Wed, 9 Dec 2020 09:59:05 +0100
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>, od@...c.me,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] if_enabled.h: Add IF_ENABLED_OR_ELSE() and
 IF_ENABLED() macros

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 5:48 PM Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net> wrote:

> Introduce a new header <linux/if_enabled.h>, that brings two new macros:
> IF_ENABLED_OR_ELSE() and IF_ENABLED().

I understand what the patch is trying to do, but when we already have
IS_ENABLED() in <linux/kconfig.h> this syntax becomes a big cognitive
confusion for the mind.

At least the commit needs to explain why it doesn't work to use
IS_ENABLED() instead so that this is needed.

Certainly the build failures must be possible to solve so that this
can live with the sibling IS_ENABLED() inside <linux/kconfig.h>,
it can't be too hard.

Yours,
Linus Walleij