linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 13/28] mfd: sec: Remove #ifdef guards for PM related functions

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:   Mon, 08 Aug 2022 11:28:58 +0200
From:   Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
        linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/28] mfd: sec: Remove #ifdef guards for PM related
 functions

Hi Krzysztof,

Le lun., août 8 2022 at 12:11:02 +0300, Krzysztof Kozlowski 
<krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> a écrit :
> On 07/08/2022 17:52, Paul Cercueil wrote:
>>  Use the new DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS() and pm_sleep_ptr() macros
>>  to handle the .suspend/.resume callbacks.
>> 
>>  These macros allow the suspend and resume functions to be 
>> automatically
>>  dropped by the compiler when CONFIG_SUSPEND is disabled, without 
>> having
>>  to use #ifdef guards.
>> 
>>  The advantage is then that these functions are now always compiled
>>  independently of any Kconfig option, and thanks to that bugs and
>>  regressions are easier to catch.
>> 
>>  Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
>>  Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
>>  Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
> 
> The address does not work. Please don't add it to commit log.

That's what get-maintainers gave me, and I didn't get any error sending 
at that address. But I'll take your word.

>>  Cc: linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org
> 
> This is also not really needed in commit log... it's just a mailing 
> list...
> 
> I actually never understood why people want to add to commit log, so 
> to
> something which will last 10 years, Cc-ing other folks, instead of
> adding such tags after '---'. Imagine 10 years from now:
> 
> 1. What's the point to be cced on this patch after 10 years instead of
> using maintainers file (the one in 10 years)? Why Cc-ing me in 10 
> years?
> If I am a maintainer of this driver in that time, I will be C-ced 
> based
> on maintainers file. If I am not a maintainer in 10 years, why the 
> heck
> cc-ing me based on some 10-year old commit? Just because I was a
> maintainer once, like 10 years ago?
> 
> 2. Or why cc-ing such people when backporting to stable?
> 
> It's quite a lot of unnecessary emails which many of us won't actually
> handle later...
> 
> I sincerely admit I was once also adding such Cc-tags. But that time 
> my
> employer was counting lines-of-patch (including commit log)... crazy, 
> right?

Yeah, well, I can add these tags after the '---' line. Nobody ever told 
me that I was doing it wrong, and I see Cc: tags quite often in commit 
messages, so I thought it was common practice.

>>  ---
>>   drivers/mfd/sec-core.c | 7 +++----
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> 
>>  diff --git a/drivers/mfd/sec-core.c b/drivers/mfd/sec-core.c
>>  index 1fb29c45f5cf..a467de2b2fea 100644
>>  --- a/drivers/mfd/sec-core.c
>>  +++ b/drivers/mfd/sec-core.c
>>  @@ -455,7 +455,6 @@ static void sec_pmic_shutdown(struct i2c_client 
>> *i2c)
>>   	regmap_update_bits(sec_pmic->regmap_pmic, reg, mask, 0);
>>   }
>> 
>>  -#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
>>   static int sec_pmic_suspend(struct device *dev)
> 
> Did you test W=1 with !CONFIG_PM_SLEEP? No warnings?

I tested the PR with !CONFIG_PM_SLEEP, correct. sec-core.o compiles 
fine. No warnings with W=1.
> 
Cheers,
-Paul