Re: [RFC 30/32] /dev/port: don't compile file operations without CONFIG_DEVPORT

Niklas Schnelle
2021-12-29T10:26:04Z

On Tue, 2021-12-28 at 09:17 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 05:43:15PM +0100, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> > In the future inb() and friends will not be available when compiling
> > with CONFIG_HAS_IOPORT=n so we must only try to access them here if
> > CONFIG_DEVPORT is set which depends on HAS_IOPORT.
> >
> > Co-developed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/char/mem.c | 6 +++++-
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/char/mem.c b/drivers/char/mem.c
> > index cc296f0823bd..c1373617153f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/char/mem.c
> > +++ b/drivers/char/mem.c
> > @@ -402,6 +402,7 @@ static int mmap_mem(struct file *file, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEVPORT
> > static ssize_t read_port(struct file *file, char __user *buf,
> > size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
> > {
> > @@ -443,6 +444,7 @@ static ssize_t write_port(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
> > *ppos = i;
> > return tmp-buf;
> > }
> > +#endif
> >
> > static ssize_t read_null(struct file *file, char __user *buf,
> > size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
> > @@ -665,12 +667,14 @@ static const struct file_operations null_fops = {
> > .splice_write = splice_write_null,
> > };
> >
> > -static const struct file_operations __maybe_unused port_fops = {
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEVPORT
> > +static const struct file_operations port_fops = {
> > .llseek = memory_lseek,
> > .read = read_port,
> > .write = write_port,
> > .open = open_port,
> > };
> > +#endif
>
> Why is this #ifdef needed if it is already __maybe_unused?

Because read_port() calls inb() and write_port() calls outb() they
wouldn't compile once these are no longer defined. Then however the
read_port/write_port symbols in the struct initialization above
couldn't be resolved.

>
> In looking closer, this change could be taken now as the use of this
> variable already is behind this same #ifdef statement, right?

Yes

>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h