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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 10:53:06 +0200 From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> To: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com> Cc: Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-omap <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>, Clay McClure <clay@...mons.net>, Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>, Murali Karicheri <m-karicheri2@...com> Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3] net: ethernet: ti: fix build and remove TI_CPTS_MOD workaround On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 10:35 AM Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com> wrote: > > Hi Arnd, > > On 08/05/2020 14:25, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:14 PM Grygorii Strashko > > <grygorii.strashko@...com> wrote: > >> On 08/05/2020 13:10, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 11:59 AM Grygorii Strashko > > > >>>> That's because TI_CPTS_MOD (which is the symbol gating the _compilation_ of > >>>> cpts.c) now depends on PTP_1588_CLOCK, and so is not enabled in these > >>>> configurations, but TI_CPTS (which is the symbol gating _calls_ to the cpts > >>>> functions) _is_ enabled. So we end up compiling calls to functions that > >>>> don't exist, resulting in the linker errors. > >>>> > >>>> This patch fixes build errors and restores previous behavior by: > >>>> - ensure PTP_1588_CLOCK=y in TI specific configs and CPTS will be built > >>>> - use IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_TI_CPTS) in code instead of IS_ENABLED() > >>> > >>> I don't understand what IS_REACHABLE() is needed for once all the other > >>> changes are in place. I'd hope we can avoid that. Do you still see > >>> failures without > >>> that or is it just a precaution. I can do some randconfig testing on your patch > >>> to see what else might be needed to avoid IS_REACHABLE(). > >> > >> I've not changed this part of original patch, but seems you're right. > >> > >> I can drop it and resend, but, unfortunately, i do not have time today for full build testing. > > > > I have applied to patch locally to my randconfig tree, with the IS_REACHABLE() > > changes taken out. > > > > What will be the conclusion here? I have seen no other problems with it, please leave out the the IS_REACHABLE() changes and just use the dependencies. Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists