linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/6] sparc: use the asm-generic version of cpuinfo

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: <87c83d38-18bc-7dfc-be6f-d906ed713450@microchip.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Aug 2022 15:37:40 +0000
From:   <Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com>
To:     <sam@...nborg.org>, <mail@...chuod.ie>
CC:     <monstr@...str.eu>, <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        <palmer@...belt.com>, <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        <gor@...ux.ibm.com>, <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
        <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>, <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
        <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>, <dalias@...c.org>,
        <davem@...emloft.net>, <tglx@...utronix.de>, <mingo@...hat.com>,
        <bp@...en8.de>, <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, <x86@...nel.org>,
        <hpa@...or.com>, <arnd@...db.de>, <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        <keescook@...omium.org>, <peterz@...radead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
        <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] sparc: use the asm-generic version of cpuinfo_op

On 26/08/2022 15:47, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> Hi Conor.
> 
> Thanks for this nice simplification, but I think you can make it even
> better.
> 
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 12:35:12PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
>>
>> There's little point in duplicating the declaration of cpuinfo_op now
>> that there's a shared version of it, so drop it & include the generic
>> header.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/sparc/include/asm/cpudata.h | 3 +--
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/sparc/include/asm/cpudata.h b/arch/sparc/include/asm/cpudata.h
>> index d213165ee713..af6ef3c028a9 100644
>> --- a/arch/sparc/include/asm/cpudata.h
>> +++ b/arch/sparc/include/asm/cpudata.h
>> @@ -6,8 +6,7 @@
>>
>>  #include <linux/threads.h>
>>  #include <linux/percpu.h>
>> -
>> -extern const struct seq_operations cpuinfo_op;
>> +#include <asm-generic/processor.h>
> 
> Since the header file did not need <asm-generic/processor.h> then it
> should not need it now after deleting stuff.
> The better fix is to add the missing include to arch/sparc/kernel/cpu.c,
> where we have the user of it.
> 
> A header file should include what it needs, and no more.
> 
> I looked only at this patch, this comment may also be relevant for the
> other patches.

Hey Sam, thanks for your feedback.
As per Geert's suggestion, submitted a v2:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20220825205942.1713914-1-mail@conchuod.ie/T/#u

In v2, I included linux/processor.h instead of an asm-generic header.
The diff for sparc became:

diff --git a/arch/sparc/include/asm/cpudata.h b/arch/sparc/include/asm/cpudata.h
index d213165ee713..f7e690a7860b 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/include/asm/cpudata.h
+++ b/arch/sparc/include/asm/cpudata.h
@@ -7,8 +7,6 @@
 #include <linux/threads.h>
 #include <linux/percpu.h>
 
-extern const struct seq_operations cpuinfo_op;
-
 #endif /* !(__ASSEMBLY__) */
 
 #if defined(__sparc__) && defined(__arch64__)
diff --git a/arch/sparc/kernel/cpu.c b/arch/sparc/kernel/cpu.c
index 79cd6ccfeac0..ffdc7a825b80 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/kernel/cpu.c
+++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/cpu.c
@@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
 #include <linux/smp.h>
 #include <linux/threads.h>
 #include <linux/pgtable.h>
+#include <linux/processor.h>
 
 #include <asm/spitfire.h>
 #include <asm/oplib.h>

Hopefully that is more appealing to you!
Thanks,
Conor.