linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] gpiolib: remove extra

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: <ZYRkLfYnU3WZEWPa@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 18:13:33 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] gpiolib: remove extra_checks

On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 02:00:39PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 1:52 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 10:26:03AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 4:28 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:

...

> > > Defining DEBUG makes sense to
> > > enable dev_dbg() messages.
> >
> > Exactly!
> >
> > > CONFIG_DEBUG_GPIO is used by one driver
> >
> > By all drivers which are using pr_debug() / dev_dbg().
> > I am using it a lot in my development process (actually I have it enabled
> > in all my kernel configurations).
> 
> I'm not saying we should remove it. It'll stay defined in the Makefile
> and remain seamless for debug messages. I just want to get rid of that
> ugly extra_checks variable which has very little impact.

I agree that extra_checks is unusual (or as Linus put it "non-standard")
thingy. And I agree that removal is for good.

My question here solely about that WARN_ON(). Do we need it always be enabled
or not?

> > > to enable code that can lead to undefined behavior (should it maybe be
> > > #if 0?).
> >
> > I don't know what you are talking about here.
> 
> I'm talking about drivers/gpio/gpio-tps65219.c and its usage of
> CONFIG_DEBUG_GPIO.

Oh, that one should probably be

#if 0
	...
#endif

or

	if (0) {
		...
	}

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko