linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] of: property: fw_devlink: Ignore interrupts property for some configs

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: <CAGETcx8cy_6X3S4KCG9fTt2gVvf3Hte2S08Kt8qZKC8mbDDONg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 Feb 2021 12:22:10 -0800
From:   Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
To:     "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@...ux.net>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: property: fw_devlink: Ignore interrupts property for
 some configs

On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 12:20 PM Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
<lkml@...ux.net> wrote:
>
> On 15.02.21 23:42, Saravana Kannan wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/of/property.c b/drivers/of/property.c
> > index 79b68519fe30..5036a362f52e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/of/property.c
> > +++ b/drivers/of/property.c
> > @@ -1300,6 +1300,9 @@ static struct device_node *parse_interrupts(struct device_node *np,
> >   {
> >       struct of_phandle_args sup_args;
> >
> > +     if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_IRQ) || IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC))
> > +             return NULL;
> > +
> >       if (strcmp(prop_name, "interrupts") &&
> >           strcmp(prop_name, "interrupts-extended"))
> >               return NULL;
>
> wouldn't it be better to #ifdef-out the whole code in this case ?

No, #ifdef is not preferred. That's why we even have the IS_ENABLED()
macros in the first place. The compiled will optimize out the code.

-Saravana