linux-kernel - Re: [EXTERNAL] [PATCH] x86: Fix build regression with CONFIG_KEXEC

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20241209222232.GLZ1dtqBUEm15bNUY5@fat_crate.local>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 23:22:32 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [PATCH] x86: Fix build regression with
 CONFIG_KEXEC_JUMP enabled

On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 09:52:57PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Already had to. The question is whether I'm content to follow the existing
> precedent and put the ifdef around just the two lines of code which don't
> compile otherwise, or whether I want to clean it up and elide the whole of
> the unreachable code paths.

I'd say, let's try it and see how it looks and whether the code gets more
readable this way but let's get rid of the yak hair first, shall we?

:-)

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette