linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: dell: Use *-y instead of *-objs in Makefile

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <D7VT4O9N3KD3.3DK9CY1TODOMR@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:09:56 -0500
From: "Kurt Borja" <kuurtb@...il.com>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Hans de Goede" <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
 <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>, "LKML"
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Pali Rohár
 <pali@...nel.org>, <Dell.Client.Kernel@...l.com>, "Matthew Garrett"
 <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>, "Andy Shevchenko"
 <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: dell: Use *-y instead of *-objs in
 Makefile

On Mon Feb 17, 2025 at 3:58 AM -05, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2025, Kurt Borja wrote:
>
>> The `objs` suffix is reserved for user-space tools. Use the `y` suffix
>> instead, which is usually used for kernel drivers.
>> 
>> Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Kurt Borja <kuurtb@...il.com>
>> ---
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I based this patch on top of the for-next branch.
>> 
>> Ilpo, if you prefer this patch to be based on top of the fixes branch,
>> let me know. I'd submit two separate patches, one for alienware-wmi, on
>> top of the for-next branch and one for the other drivers, on top of
>> fixes.
>
> Thanks for the fix.
>
> I took this through for-next branch to not make our lives unnecessarily 
> complicated. If there would be only handful of -objs, I might have decide 
> otherwise but this (wrong) pattern is really widespread so removing a few 
> drops from the ocean is not going to sound us the finish line fanfare. But 
> it's still an important step towards the right direction, regardless.
>
> TBH, I didn't know the distinction either until Andy explained it (and 
> like you, would have just copied the pattern if one was readily 
> available). But I've never really deep dived into the kernel's build 
> system anyway.

I will finish the job for this subsystem, so no one copies this pattern
again :p

>
> I wonder why checkpatch doesn't catch it, or does it? At least there are 
> no "objs" strings in its source.

It doesn't actually. Not even with --strict.

-- 
 ~ Kurt