On Tue 2013-08-27 14:01:42, Manfred Hollstein wrote: > On Tue, 27 Aug 2013, 13:29:43 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > @@ -1205,6 +1290,10 @@ struct boot_params *efi_main(void *handle, efi_system_table_t *_table, > > > > > > > > > > setup_efi_pci(boot_params); > > > > > > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SNAPSHOT_VERIFICATION > > > > > + setup_s4_keys(boot_params); > > > > > +#endif > > > > > + > > > > > > > > Move ifdef inside the function? > > > > > > OK, I will define a dummy function for non-verification situation. > > > > IIRC you can just put the #ifdef inside the function body. > > This is certainly not to be invoked on a frequent basis (and therefore > not on a hot path), but from a more general angle, wouldn't this leave > a(nother) plain "jsr... rts" sequence without any effect other than > burning a few cycles? If the whole function call can be disabled > (ignored) in a certain configuration, it shouldn't call at all, should > it? gcc should be able to deal with optimizing that out. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
