netdev - Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 2/8] sfc: add devlink info support for ef100

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, 14 Feb 2023 17:56:52 +0100
From:   Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@...el.com>
To:     Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
CC:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        <alejandro.lucero-palau@....com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-net-drivers@....com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
        <kuba@...nel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>, <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        <habetsm.xilinx@...il.com>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        <corbet@....net>, <jiri@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 2/8] sfc: add devlink info support for ef100

From: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 15:28:24 +0000

> On 14/02/2023 07:39, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 06:34:22PM +0000, alejandro.lucero-palau@....com wrote:
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_RTC_LIB
>>> +	u64 tstamp;
>>> +#endif
>>
>> If you are going to resubmit the series.
>>
>> Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
>>   1140 21) Conditional Compilation
>>   1141 ---------------------------
>> ....
>>   1156 If you have a function or variable which may potentially go unused in a
>>   1157 particular configuration, and the compiler would warn about its definition
>>   1158 going unused, mark the definition as __maybe_unused rather than wrapping it in
>>   1159 a preprocessor conditional.  (However, if a function or variable *always* goes
>>   1160 unused, delete it.)
>>
>> Thanks
> 
> FWIW, the existing code in sfc all uses the preprocessor
>  conditional approach; maybe it's better to be consistent
>  within the driver?
> 

When it comes to "consistency vs start doing it right" thing, I always
go for the latter. This "we'll fix it all one day" moment often tends to
never happen and it's applicable to any vendor or subsys. Stop doing
things the discouraged way often is a good (and sometimes the only) start.

Thanks,
Olek