linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 -next] perf/marvell: cn10k Fix build error without CONFIG

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:   Thu, 10 Mar 2022 10:21:26 +0000
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Bharat Bhushan <bbhushan2@...vell.com>, bbudiredla@...vell.com,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 -next] perf/marvell: cn10k Fix build error without
 CONFIG_OF

On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 11:04:21AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 10:58 AM Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 02:50:45PM +0800, YueHaibing wrote:
> >
> > Ah, sorry, I already fixed this when the conflict was first reported:
> >
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git/commit/?h=for-next/perf&id=6676a42f1e4f1b8ec166b723a3801b7113c25a0e
> >
> > However, I thought this driver could be compile-tested on architectures
> > without OF and then we'd get some report from that? At least, I'm certain
> > I've _added_ these ifdefs to other PMU drivers in the past.
> 
> The #ifdefs are never really needed, the only reason to have them is
> to save a few bytes on architectures that don't normally use DT,
> at the expense of making it slightly less readable.
> 
> For compile-testing purposes we don't care about the size of the module,
> and compiling in the table unconditionally is easier.

I think the problem is when the #ifdefs are removed but the use of
of_match_ptr() remains, leading to reports from the robot:

https://lore.kernel.org/r/202201041700.01KZEzhb-lkp@intel.com

Should we therefore remove of_match_ptr() altogether? It seems like it's
leading people in the wrong direction here.

Will