Hello Mike,
On 02.02.21 19:10, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22 2021 at 3:43am -0500,
> Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ENCRYPTED_KEYS) is true whether the option is built-in
>> or a module, so use it instead of #if defined checking for each
>> separately.
>>
>> The other #if was to avoid a static function defined, but unused
>> warning. As we now always build the callsite when the function
>> is defined, we can remove that first #if guard.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Cc: Dmitry Baryshkov <dbaryshkov@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/md/dm-crypt.c | 7 ++-----
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-crypt.c b/drivers/md/dm-crypt.c
>> index 8c874710f0bc..7eeb9248eda5 100644
>> --- a/drivers/md/dm-crypt.c
>> +++ b/drivers/md/dm-crypt.c
>> @@ -2436,7 +2436,6 @@ static int set_key_user(struct crypt_config *cc, struct key *key)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> -#if defined(CONFIG_ENCRYPTED_KEYS) || defined(CONFIG_ENCRYPTED_KEYS_MODULE)
>> static int set_key_encrypted(struct crypt_config *cc, struct key *key)
>> {
>> const struct encrypted_key_payload *ekp;
>> @@ -2452,7 +2451,6 @@ static int set_key_encrypted(struct crypt_config *cc, struct key *key)
>>
>> return 0;
>> }
>> -#endif /* CONFIG_ENCRYPTED_KEYS */
>>
>> static int crypt_set_keyring_key(struct crypt_config *cc, const char *key_string)
>> {
>> @@ -2482,11 +2480,10 @@ static int crypt_set_keyring_key(struct crypt_config *cc, const char *key_string
>> } else if (!strncmp(key_string, "user:", key_desc - key_string + 1)) {
>> type = &key_type_user;
>> set_key = set_key_user;
>> -#if defined(CONFIG_ENCRYPTED_KEYS) || defined(CONFIG_ENCRYPTED_KEYS_MODULE)
>> - } else if (!strncmp(key_string, "encrypted:", key_desc - key_string + 1)) {
>> + } else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ENCRYPTED_KEYS) &&
>> + !strncmp(key_string, "encrypted:", key_desc - key_string + 1)) {
>> type = &key_type_encrypted;
>> set_key = set_key_encrypted;
>> -#endif
>> } else {
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>> --
>> 2.30.0
>>
>
> I could be mistaken but the point of the previous way used to enable
> this code was to not compile the code at all. How you have it, the
> branch just isn't taken but the compiled code is left to bloat dm-crypt.
>
> Why not leave this as is and follow same pattern in your next patch?
It's safe to assume the compiler will constant-fold the resulting if (0) away.
The kernel coding style documentation got a section on that:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.11-rc6/process/coding-style.html#conditional-compilation
Cheers,
Ahmad
>
> Mike
>
>
>
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
