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: <b7ed8d0b07e82a637bfc8a3f4d592f0f15ba9688.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 14:46:58 +0200
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To: David Arcari <darcari@...hat.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

On Wed, 2025-02-12 at 07:41 -0500, David Arcari wrote:
> - #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?

I've not been involved into kernel that much for long time. In old days
sprinkling #ifdefs around was an anti-pattern. Most probably nowadays too. So
the second option sounds better to me.

Artem.