linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 31/37] drm: handle HAS

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: <54ef79ae38db24f83739580445a8ed97a8d86044.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Apr 2022 16:47:56 +0200
From:   Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
        Dave Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>,
        Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        "open list:DRM DRIVER FOR QXL VIRTUAL GPU" 
        <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        "open list:DRM DRIVER FOR QXL VIRTUAL GPU" 
        <spice-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "open list:DRM DRIVERS" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 31/37] drm: handle HAS_IOPORT dependencies

On Fri, 2022-04-29 at 15:50 +0200, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> In a future patch HAS_IOPORT=n will result in inb()/outb() and friends
> not being declared. We thus need to add HAS_IOPORT as dependency for
> those drivers using them. There is also a direct and hard coded use in
> cirrus.c which according to the comment is only necessary during resume.
> Let's just skip this as for example s390 which doesn't have I/O port
> support also doesen't support suspend/resume.
> 
> Co-developed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---

Sorry everyone. I sent this as PATCH in error while preparing to sent
the same series as RFC. Since e-mail has no remote delete and I lack a
time machine let's just all pretend you only got the RFC.