linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] ACPI: Declare acpi_blacklisted() only if CONFIG

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: <CAJZ5v0hqt6+1AvDWb0BYw0z9burVQfdkOF1qUGzRRuPmvq4qQg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 18:37:59 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, 
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] ACPI: Declare acpi_blacklisted() only if CONFIG_X86 is enabled

On Sun, Apr 7, 2024 at 8:33 AM Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> The function acpi_blacklisted() is defined only when CONFIG_X86 is
> enabled. So to keep it consistent, protect its declaration with
> CONFIG_X86.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/acpi.h | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/acpi.h b/include/linux/acpi.h
> index 34829f2c517a..3ad6bed9eb4f 100644
> --- a/include/linux/acpi.h
> +++ b/include/linux/acpi.h
> @@ -421,7 +421,9 @@ extern char *wmi_get_acpi_device_uid(const char *guid);
>
>  extern char acpi_video_backlight_string[];
>  extern long acpi_is_video_device(acpi_handle handle);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86
>  extern int acpi_blacklisted(void);
> +#endif
>  extern void acpi_osi_setup(char *str);
>  extern bool acpi_osi_is_win8(void);
>
> --

Applied (as 6.10 material), but it looks to me like this declaration
could be moved away from this header file at all, as the function is
only used in one place in arch-x86 code.

Thanks!