linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 23/34] firmware: qcom_scm: mark qcom_scm_qseecom_allowlist as __maybe

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: <cb46f9bb-3ce9-4327-8019-4dd4346c715c@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 11:31:48 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
 Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
 Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>,
 Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
 Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>,
 Kathiravan Thirumoorthy <quic_kathirav@...cinc.com>,
 Guru Das Srinagesh <quic_gurus@...cinc.com>,
 Robert Marko <robimarko@...il.com>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 23/34] firmware: qcom_scm: mark qcom_scm_qseecom_allowlist
 as __maybe_unused

On 03/04/2024 10:06, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> 
> When CONFIG_OF is disabled, there is no reference to this variable:
> 
> drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.c:1655:34: error: unused variable 'qcom_scm_qseecom_allowlist' [-Werror,-Wunused-const-variable]
> static const struct of_device_id qcom_scm_qseecom_allowlist[] = {
> 
> Mark it as __maybe_unused to hide this warning.
> 
> Fixes: 00b1248606ba ("firmware: qcom_scm: Add support for Qualcomm Secure Execution Environment SCM interface")
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> ---

I already fixed this and have an Ack:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231120185623.338608-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org/

Can anyone pick up that one? Why these trivial and obvious fixes take so
much effort...

Just like Arnd, I keep fixing many little things which takes
considerable amount of time. This is not a problem. You know what is the
problem? Chasing maintainers, keeping track of my own patches, resending
and pinging. All this takes considerable amount of time which is a
*wasted* time which I could spend on developing new code. Then finding
out that Arnd spent his time to fix this again!

Same simple issue being fixed by two people. Considering effort spent on
tracking/resending patches (or even writing this stupid rant), simple
patch which should take 1h of developers time takes 3 or four times more!

Best regards,
Krzysztof