Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 8 May 2023 14:56:27 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 07/12] x86/cpu/keylocker: Load an internal wrapping key at boot-time | From | Dave Hansen <> |
| |
On 5/8/23 11:18, Chang S. Bae wrote: > On 5/5/2023 4:05 PM, Eric Biggers wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 03:59:31PM -0700, Chang S. Bae wrote: >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_KEYLOCKER >>> +void setup_keylocker(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c); >>> +void destroy_keylocker_data(void); >>> +#else >>> +#define setup_keylocker(c) do { } while (0) >>> +#define destroy_keylocker_data() do { } while (0) >>> +#endif >> >> Shouldn't the !CONFIG_X86_KEYLOCKER stubs be static inline functions >> instead of >> macros, so that type checking works? > > I think either way works here. This macro is just for nothing.
Chang, I do prefer the 'static inline' as a general rule. Think of this:
static inline void setup_keylocker(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c) {}
versus:
#define setup_keylocker(c) do { } while (0)
Imagine some dope does:
char c; ... setup_keylocker(c);
With the macro, they'll get no type warning. The inline actually makes it easier to find bugs because folks will get _some_ type checking no matter how they compile the code.
| |