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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 10 Mar 2022 11:29:47 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, 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 11:21 AM Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
> 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:
>
> 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.

There may be valid uses for it, e.g. if the array referenced by it is
in a separate, and conditionally compiled file, or if the #ifdef block
covers more than just the table.

Removing 1563 instances of it also takes a lot of work. Almost
all of them are probably useless, and quite a lot of them are
actively wrong, because they refer to arrays without an #ifdef.

Maybe coccinelle can help here.

        Arnd