linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] mmc: sdhci: Use EXPORT_PM_FN_NS

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: <Z4kiVLrPTDZr3J2K@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 17:14:28 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	Richard Fitzgerald <rf@...nsource.cirrus.com>
Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
	Victor Shih <victor.shih@...esyslogic.com.tw>,
	linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] mmc: sdhci: Use EXPORT_PM_FN_NS_GPL() for
 exporting PM functions

On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 07:11:41PM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 9/12/24 18:36, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 12:38:59PM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> >> On 1/11/24 12:11, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >>> Switch from ugly ifdeffery to using EXPORT_PM_FN_NS_GPL()
> >>> for exporting PM functions. This helps cleaning up the other
> >>> SDHCI drivers in the future.
> >>
> >> It seems sdhci is the first code in the kernel to use
> >> EXPORT_PM_FN_NS_GPL() but it was not asked for ;-)
> >>
> >> As such, can you fill in a little background.  I am not
> >> sure what it achieves.  Why have CONFIG_PM if not to
> >> #ifdef dependent code behind it?
> > 
> > It makes sure that the code elimination happens at compile time and
> 
> Does it eliminate the code?  Maybe I am missing something,
> but it looks like it is still there:

Hmm... Indeed. My tests show the same. I believe these new macros were never
tested (and we have no users in the kernel).

Richard?

> > at the same time gives developer less uglified (by ifdeffery) code.
> > It means there is less risk to miss anything of that which make become
> > a compile-time warning of unused function, or even issues during linking
> > with modules, etc.
> > 
> > Should I update a commit message with that?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko