[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <210271.1619670673@turing-police>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 00:31:13 -0400
From: "Valdis Klētnieks" <valdis.kletnieks@...edu>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc: bkkarthik <bkkarthik@...u.pes.edu>,
Anupama K Patil <anupamakpatil123@...il.com>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
skhan@...uxfoundation.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
kernelnewbies@...nelnewbies.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: pnp: proc.c: Handle errors while attaching devices
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 07:26:27 +0300, Leon Romanovsky said:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:20:32PM +0530, bkkarthik wrote:
> > These were only intended for a clean-up job, the idea of this function came from how PCI handles procfs.
> > Maybe those should be changed?
>
> Probably, the CONFIG_PROC_FS around pci_proc_*() is not needed too.
Will that actually build correctly if it's an embedded system or something build with
CONFIG_PROC_FS=n? I'd expect that to die a horrid death while linking vmlinx due
to stuff inside that #ifdef calling symbols only present with PROC_FS=m/y.
In general, inline ifdef's are frowned upon, so if you come across one in the kernel
source, that's probably a *big* hint that either (a) refactoring the code to eliminate
an inline ifdef was just too ugly to be allowed to live or (b) you *have* to put a guard
around it because you're guaranteed a build failure otherwise.
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists