From: "Valdis Klētnieks" <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
Anupama K Patil <anupamakpatil123@gmail.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
bkkarthik <bkkarthik@pesu.pes.edu>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz>,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org,
skhan@linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: pnp: proc.c: Handle errors while attaching devices
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 00:31:13 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <210271.1619670673@turing-police> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YIeSc1qePhuQ1XRK@unreal>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 904 bytes --]
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 07:26:27 +0300, Leon Romanovsky said:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:20:32PM +0530, bkkarthik wrote:
> > These were only intended for a clean-up job, the idea of this function came from how PCI handles procfs.
> > Maybe those should be changed?
>
> Probably, the CONFIG_PROC_FS around pci_proc_*() is not needed too.
Will that actually build correctly if it's an embedded system or something build with
CONFIG_PROC_FS=n? I'd expect that to die a horrid death while linking vmlinx due
to stuff inside that #ifdef calling symbols only present with PROC_FS=m/y.
In general, inline ifdef's are frowned upon, so if you come across one in the kernel
source, that's probably a *big* hint that either (a) refactoring the code to eliminate
an inline ifdef was just too ugly to be allowed to live or (b) you *have* to put a guard
around it because you're guaranteed a build failure otherwise.
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 170 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Kernelnewbies mailing list
Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org
https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Valdis Klētnieks" <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
Cc: bkkarthik <bkkarthik@pesu.pes.edu>,
Anupama K Patil <anupamakpatil123@gmail.com>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
skhan@linuxfoundation.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: pnp: proc.c: Handle errors while attaching devices
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 00:31:13 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <210271.1619670673@turing-police> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YIeSc1qePhuQ1XRK@unreal>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 904 bytes --]
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 07:26:27 +0300, Leon Romanovsky said:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:20:32PM +0530, bkkarthik wrote:
> > These were only intended for a clean-up job, the idea of this function came from how PCI handles procfs.
> > Maybe those should be changed?
>
> Probably, the CONFIG_PROC_FS around pci_proc_*() is not needed too.
Will that actually build correctly if it's an embedded system or something build with
CONFIG_PROC_FS=n? I'd expect that to die a horrid death while linking vmlinx due
to stuff inside that #ifdef calling symbols only present with PROC_FS=m/y.
In general, inline ifdef's are frowned upon, so if you come across one in the kernel
source, that's probably a *big* hint that either (a) refactoring the code to eliminate
an inline ifdef was just too ugly to be allowed to live or (b) you *have* to put a guard
around it because you're guaranteed a build failure otherwise.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-29 4:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-24 19:43 [PATCH] drivers: pnp: proc.c: Handle errors while attaching devices Anupama K Patil
2021-04-24 19:43 ` Anupama K Patil
2021-04-24 20:37 ` Valdis Klētnieks
2021-04-24 20:37 ` Valdis Klētnieks
2021-04-25 1:06 ` Barnabás Pőcze
2021-04-25 1:06 ` Barnabás Pőcze
2021-04-26 5:04 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-26 5:04 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-26 17:50 ` bkkarthik
2021-04-26 17:50 ` bkkarthik
2021-04-27 4:26 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-27 4:26 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-29 4:31 ` Valdis Klētnieks [this message]
2021-04-29 4:31 ` Valdis Klētnieks
2021-04-29 7:05 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-29 7:05 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-28 12:04 ` Jaroslav Kysela
2021-04-28 12:04 ` Jaroslav Kysela
2021-04-28 12:21 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-28 12:21 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-28 12:26 ` bkkarthik
2021-04-28 12:26 ` bkkarthik
2021-04-28 12:30 ` Jaroslav Kysela
2021-04-28 12:30 ` Jaroslav Kysela
2021-04-28 12:37 ` bkkarthik
2021-04-28 12:37 ` bkkarthik
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=210271.1619670673@turing-police \
--to=valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=anupamakpatil123@gmail.com \
--cc=bkkarthik@pesu.pes.edu \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org \
--cc=leon@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=perex@perex.cz \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.