linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] ACPI: platform_profile: Stub platform_profile

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: <20250518144548.GA2575813@robin.jannau.net>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 16:45:48 +0200
From: Janne Grunau <j@...nau.net>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@...nel.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ACPI: platform_profile: Stub platform_profile_cycle

On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 12:42:36PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2025, at 12:18, Janne Grunau via B4 Relay wrote:
> *ops);
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_PLATFORM_PROFILE
> >  int platform_profile_cycle(void);
> > +#else
> 
> CONFIG_ACPI_PLATFORM_PROFILE is a 'tristate' symbol, so the #ifdef
> check is wrong here when both the caller and the platform profile
> are in a loadable module.
> 
> I think what you want here is
> 
> #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI_PLATFORM_PROFILE)

ack, kernel test robot already complained

> Alternatively, you could move that check into the caller
> and do
> 
>       if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI_PLATFORM_PROFILE))
>               ret = platform_profile_cycle();
> 
> which makes it a little easier to catch build failures in
> drivers that are missing the 'select ACPI_PLATFORM_PROFILE'.

I think I'll go with this for v2 and remove the "ACPI || !ACPI" from
Patch 2.

thanks,

Janne