From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Lutomirski Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 02/17] zinc: introduce minimal cryptography library Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 09:06:36 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20180911214737.GA81235@gmail.com> <20180911233015.GD11474@lunn.ch> <20180911.165739.2032677219588723041.davem@davemloft.net> <35BC21D7-01F4-4F91-A7E9-8D15DE5B95D6@amacapital.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: Ard Biesheuvel , Andrew Lutomirski , "David S. Miller" , andrew@lunn.ch, Eric Biggers , Greg KH , LKML , Network Development , Samuel Neves , Jean-Philippe Aumasson , Linux Crypto Mailing List To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org > On Sep 17, 2018, at 8:28 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 4:52 PM Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>> * (Nit) The GCC command line -include'd .h files contain variable and >>> function definitions so they are actually .c files. >> >> Hmm. I would suggest just getting rid of the -include magic entirely. The resulting ifdef will be more comprehensible. > > I really don't think so, actually. The way the -include stuff works > now is that the glue code is inlined in the same place that the > assembly object file is added to the build object list, so it gels > together cleanly, as the thing is defined and set in one single place. > I could go back to the ifdefs - and even make them as clean as > possible - but I think that puts more things in more places and is > therefore more confusing. The -include system now works extremely > well. Is it really better than: #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64 #include "whatever" #endif It seems a more obfuscated than needed to put the equivalent of that into the Makefile, and I don't think people really like searching through the Makefile to figure out why the code does what it does.