linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] intel_idle: introduce 'no

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: <9416ee48-a68a-465e-85be-89d5a53afcd8@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 07:41:12 -0500
From: David Arcari <darcari@...hat.com>
To: dedekind1@...il.com, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
 linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: oe-kbuild-all@...ts.linux.dev, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
 Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
 Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] intel_idle: introduce 'no_native' module parameter


Hi Artem,

On 2/12/25 6:32 AM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Wed, 2025-02-12 at 18:09 +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>>     drivers/idle/intel_idle.c: In function 'intel_idle_init':
>>>> drivers/idle/intel_idle.c:2289:27: error: 'no_acpi' undeclared (first use
>>>> in this function); did you mean 'no_action'?
>>      2289 |         if (no_native && !no_acpi) {
>>           |                           ^~~~~~~
>>           |                           no_action
>>     drivers/idle/intel_idle.c:2289:27: note: each undeclared identifier is
>> reported only once for each function it appears in
> 
> David, this must be the !CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR_CSTATE case.
> 
> Thanks!

Oh - I see the problem.

After a quick look I see two options:

- #ifdef the code that doesn't compile
- default no_acpi=true in the !CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR_CSTATE case

I sort of like the second option better, but I worry about the 
documentation.  Specifically:

"In the case that ACPI is not configured these flags have no impact
+on functionality."

I guess that is still true.

Perhaps there is a better option.  What do you think?

Thanks,
-DA