linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] usb: typec: tcpm: remove unused static variable 'tcpm_altmode

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 8 Apr 2021 11:36:38 +0200
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To:     Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-usb <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] usb: typec: tcpm: remove unused static variable
 'tcpm_altmode_ops'

Hi,

On 4/8/21 11:25 AM, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 11:10:38AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 4/7/21 11:15 AM, Zhen Lei wrote:
>>> Fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning:
>>>
>>> drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpm.c:2107:39: warning: ‘tcpm_altmode_ops’ defined but not used [-Wunused-const-variable=]
>>>
>>> The reference to the variable 'tcpm_altmode_ops' is deleted by the
>>> commit a079973f462a ("usb: typec: tcpm: Remove tcpc_config configuration
>>> mechanism").
>>>
>>> By the way, the static functions referenced only by the variable
>>> 'tcpm_altmode_ops' are deleted accordingly.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
>>
>> I have a patch pending:
>>
>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg197684.html
>>
>> Which actually uses this. I really need to (and plan to) brush the dust of
>> this one soon and submit a new version.
>>
>> As such I would prefer for these ops to not get removed. But I guess I
>> can always include a patch in my series reverting the removal...
> 
> Well, can we then just leave the ops there? If we're going to
> re-introduce them back soon in any case, then why drop them in the
> first place.

Yes I'm in favor of just leaving them in place too, sorry if that was
not clear.

Regards,

Hans