linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V5 1/9] drivers core: Add support for Wifi band RF mitigations

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: <0f18f4bf-dc38-49e3-a484-ca2456549f0b@lunn.ch>
Date:   Sat, 1 Jul 2023 02:25:17 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     "Limonciello, Mario" <mario.limonciello@....com>
Cc:     Evan Quan <evan.quan@....com>, rafael@...nel.org, lenb@...nel.org,
        Alexander.Deucher@....com, Christian.Koenig@....com,
        Xinhui.Pan@....com, airlied@...il.com, daniel@...ll.ch,
        johannes@...solutions.net, davem@...emloft.net,
        edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
        mdaenzer@...hat.com, maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com,
        tzimmermann@...e.de, hdegoede@...hat.com, jingyuwang_vip@....com,
        Lijo.Lazar@....com, jim.cromie@...il.com, bellosilicio@...il.com,
        andrealmeid@...lia.com, trix@...hat.com, jsg@....id.au,
        arnd@...db.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/9] drivers core: Add support for Wifi band RF
 mitigations

> Right now there are stubs for non CONFIG_WBRF as well as other patches are
> using #ifdef CONFIG_WBRF or having their own stubs.  Like mac80211 patch
> looks for #ifdef CONFIG_WBRF.
> 
> I think we should pick one or the other.
> 
> Having other subsystems #ifdef CONFIG_WBRF will make the series easier to
> land through multiple trees; so I have a slight leaning in that direction.

#ifdef in C files is generally not liked because it makes build
testing harder. There are more permutations to build. It is better to use

if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_WBTR)) {
}

so that the code is compiled, and them throw away because
IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_WBTR) evaluates to false.

However, if the stubs are done correctly, the driver should not
care. I doubt this is used in any sort of hot path where every
instruction counts.

	Andrew