netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/4] crypto: caam: Avoid unused imx8m_machine

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]

Message-ID: <ZovNme6LSqxdYpS4@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 04:29:29 -0700
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
To: Horia Geanta <horia.geanta@....com>
Cc: "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
	Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@....com>,
	Gaurav Jain <gaurav.jain@....com>,
	"linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"horms@...nel.org" <horms@...nel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/4] crypto: caam: Avoid unused
 imx8m_machine_match variable

Hello Horia,

On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 10:11:40AM +0000, Horia Geanta wrote:
> On 7/2/2024 9:56 PM, Breno Leitao wrote:

> > diff --git a/drivers/crypto/caam/ctrl.c b/drivers/crypto/caam/ctrl.c
> > index bd418dea586d..d4b39184dbdb 100644
> > --- a/drivers/crypto/caam/ctrl.c
> > +++ b/drivers/crypto/caam/ctrl.c
> > @@ -80,6 +80,7 @@ static void build_deinstantiation_desc(u32 *desc, int handle)
> >  	append_jump(desc, JUMP_CLASS_CLASS1 | JUMP_TYPE_HALT);
> >  }
> >  
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
> >  static const struct of_device_id imx8m_machine_match[] = {
> >  	{ .compatible = "fsl,imx8mm", },
> >  	{ .compatible = "fsl,imx8mn", },
> > @@ -88,6 +89,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id imx8m_machine_match[] = {
> >  	{ .compatible = "fsl,imx8ulp", },
> >  	{ }
> >  };
> > +#endif

> Shouldn't using __maybe_unused instead of the ifdeffery be preferred
> in this case?

That is an option as well. Not sure if it makes any difference, tho.

If you prefer __maybe_unused, I am more than happy to send a follow-up
patch to convert the #ifdef to __maybe_unused. Up to you.

Thanks!