* [PATCH] firmware_loader: simplfy builtin or module check
@ 2022-01-12 2:34 Luis Chamberlain
2022-01-12 6:37 ` Randy Dunlap
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Luis Chamberlain @ 2022-01-12 2:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gregkh, bp; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-fsdevel, Luis Chamberlain, Borislav Petkov
The existing check is outdated and confuses developers. Use the
already existing IS_ENABLED() defined on kconfig.h which makes
the intention much clearer.
Reported-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Reported-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
---
include/linux/firmware.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/firmware.h b/include/linux/firmware.h
index 3b057dfc8284..fa3493dbe84a 100644
--- a/include/linux/firmware.h
+++ b/include/linux/firmware.h
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ static inline bool firmware_request_builtin(struct firmware *fw,
}
#endif
-#if defined(CONFIG_FW_LOADER) || (defined(CONFIG_FW_LOADER_MODULE) && defined(MODULE))
+#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FW_LOADER)
int request_firmware(const struct firmware **fw, const char *name,
struct device *device);
int firmware_request_nowarn(const struct firmware **fw, const char *name,
--
2.34.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] firmware_loader: simplfy builtin or module check
2022-01-12 2:34 [PATCH] firmware_loader: simplfy builtin or module check Luis Chamberlain
@ 2022-01-12 6:37 ` Randy Dunlap
2022-01-12 6:56 ` Masahiro Yamada
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Randy Dunlap @ 2022-01-12 6:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luis Chamberlain, gregkh, bp; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-fsdevel, Borislav Petkov
On 1/11/22 18:34, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> The existing check is outdated and confuses developers. Use the
> already existing IS_ENABLED() defined on kconfig.h which makes
> the intention much clearer.
>
> Reported-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
> Reported-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Thanks.
> ---
> include/linux/firmware.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/firmware.h b/include/linux/firmware.h
> index 3b057dfc8284..fa3493dbe84a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/firmware.h
> +++ b/include/linux/firmware.h
> @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ static inline bool firmware_request_builtin(struct firmware *fw,
> }
> #endif
>
> -#if defined(CONFIG_FW_LOADER) || (defined(CONFIG_FW_LOADER_MODULE) && defined(MODULE))
The "defined(MODULE)" part wasn't needed here. :)
> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FW_LOADER)
> int request_firmware(const struct firmware **fw, const char *name,
> struct device *device);
> int firmware_request_nowarn(const struct firmware **fw, const char *name,
--
~Randy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] firmware_loader: simplfy builtin or module check
2022-01-12 6:37 ` Randy Dunlap
@ 2022-01-12 6:56 ` Masahiro Yamada
2022-01-12 7:03 ` Randy Dunlap
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Masahiro Yamada @ 2022-01-12 6:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Randy Dunlap
Cc: Luis Chamberlain, Greg Kroah-Hartman, Borislav Petkov,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux FS-devel Mailing List,
Borislav Petkov
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 3:37 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/11/22 18:34, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > The existing check is outdated and confuses developers. Use the
> > already existing IS_ENABLED() defined on kconfig.h which makes
> > the intention much clearer.
> >
> > Reported-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
> > Reported-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
>
> Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
>
> Thanks.
>
> > ---
> > include/linux/firmware.h | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/firmware.h b/include/linux/firmware.h
> > index 3b057dfc8284..fa3493dbe84a 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/firmware.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/firmware.h
> > @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ static inline bool firmware_request_builtin(struct firmware *fw,
> > }
> > #endif
> >
> > -#if defined(CONFIG_FW_LOADER) || (defined(CONFIG_FW_LOADER_MODULE) && defined(MODULE))
>
> The "defined(MODULE)" part wasn't needed here. :)
It _is_ needed.
This seems to be equivalent to IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_FW_LOADER),
not IS_ENABLE(CONFIG_FW_LOADER).
>
> > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FW_LOADER)
> > int request_firmware(const struct firmware **fw, const char *name,
> > struct device *device);
> > int firmware_request_nowarn(const struct firmware **fw, const char *name,
>
> --
> ~Randy
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] firmware_loader: simplfy builtin or module check
2022-01-12 6:56 ` Masahiro Yamada
@ 2022-01-12 7:03 ` Randy Dunlap
2022-01-12 7:36 ` Randy Dunlap
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Randy Dunlap @ 2022-01-12 7:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Masahiro Yamada
Cc: Luis Chamberlain, Greg Kroah-Hartman, Borislav Petkov,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux FS-devel Mailing List,
Borislav Petkov
On 1/11/22 22:56, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 3:37 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/11/22 18:34, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
>>> The existing check is outdated and confuses developers. Use the
>>> already existing IS_ENABLED() defined on kconfig.h which makes
>>> the intention much clearer.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
>>> Reported-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
>>
>> Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>> ---
>>> include/linux/firmware.h | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/firmware.h b/include/linux/firmware.h
>>> index 3b057dfc8284..fa3493dbe84a 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/firmware.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/firmware.h
>>> @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ static inline bool firmware_request_builtin(struct firmware *fw,
>>> }
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> -#if defined(CONFIG_FW_LOADER) || (defined(CONFIG_FW_LOADER_MODULE) && defined(MODULE))
>>
>> The "defined(MODULE)" part wasn't needed here. :)
>
>
>
> It _is_ needed.
>
> This seems to be equivalent to IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_FW_LOADER),
> not IS_ENABLE(CONFIG_FW_LOADER).
>
Hm, /me confused.
How can CONFIG_FW_LOADER_MODULE be =y when MODULE is not defined?
>
>
>>
>>> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FW_LOADER)
>>> int request_firmware(const struct firmware **fw, const char *name,
>>> struct device *device);
>>> int firmware_request_nowarn(const struct firmware **fw, const char *name,
>>
>> --
>> ~Randy
>
>
>
--
~Randy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] firmware_loader: simplfy builtin or module check
2022-01-12 7:03 ` Randy Dunlap
@ 2022-01-12 7:36 ` Randy Dunlap
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Randy Dunlap @ 2022-01-12 7:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Masahiro Yamada
Cc: Luis Chamberlain, Greg Kroah-Hartman, Borislav Petkov,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux FS-devel Mailing List,
Borislav Petkov
On 1/11/22 23:03, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
>
> On 1/11/22 22:56, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 3:37 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/11/22 18:34, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
>>>> The existing check is outdated and confuses developers. Use the
>>>> already existing IS_ENABLED() defined on kconfig.h which makes
>>>> the intention much clearer.
>>>>
>>>> Reported-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
>>>> Reported-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> include/linux/firmware.h | 2 +-
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/firmware.h b/include/linux/firmware.h
>>>> index 3b057dfc8284..fa3493dbe84a 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/firmware.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/firmware.h
>>>> @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ static inline bool firmware_request_builtin(struct firmware *fw,
>>>> }
>>>> #endif
>>>>
>>>> -#if defined(CONFIG_FW_LOADER) || (defined(CONFIG_FW_LOADER_MODULE) && defined(MODULE))
>>>
>>> The "defined(MODULE)" part wasn't needed here. :)
>>
>>
>>
>> It _is_ needed.
>>
>> This seems to be equivalent to IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_FW_LOADER),
>> not IS_ENABLE(CONFIG_FW_LOADER).>>
>
> Hm, /me confused.
>
> How can CONFIG_FW_LOADER_MODULE be =y when MODULE is not defined?
>
OK, I get it now. Thanks for correcting me.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FW_LOADER)
>>>> int request_firmware(const struct firmware **fw, const char *name,
>>>> struct device *device);
>>>> int firmware_request_nowarn(const struct firmware **fw, const char *name,
>>>
>>> --
>>> ~Randy
>>
>>
>>
>
--
~Randy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-01-12 7:37 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-01-12 2:34 [PATCH] firmware_loader: simplfy builtin or module check Luis Chamberlain
2022-01-12 6:37 ` Randy Dunlap
2022-01-12 6:56 ` Masahiro Yamada
2022-01-12 7:03 ` Randy Dunlap
2022-01-12 7:36 ` Randy Dunlap
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).