netdev - Re: [pci PATCH v5 1/4] pci: Add pci_sriov_configure_simple for PFs that don't manage VF resources

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]

Date:   Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:44:05 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc:     Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "Duyck, Alexander H" <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Daly, Dan" <dan.daly@...el.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, netanel@...zon.com,
        Maximilian Heyne <mheyne@...zon.de>,
        "Wang, Liang-min" <liang-min.wang@...el.com>,
        "Rustad, Mark D" <mark.d.rustad@...el.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, dwmw@...zon.co.uk
Subject: Re: [pci PATCH v5 1/4] pci: Add pci_sriov_configure_simple for PFs
        that don't manage VF resources

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 01:17:00PM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> No, I am aware of those. The problem is they aren't accessed as
> function pointers. As such converting them to static inline functions
> is easy. As I am sure you are aware an "inline" function doesn't
> normally generate a function pointer.

I think Keith's original idea of defining them to NULL is right.  That
takes care of all the current trivial assign to struct cases.

If someone wants to call these functions they'll still need the ifdef
around the call as those won't otherwise compile, but they probably
want the ifdef around the whole caller anyway.