From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4EACC433DF for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 21:39:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D87A2067B for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 21:39:14 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8D87A2067B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 1F93480007; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 17:39:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 1A9C68E0006; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 17:39:14 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 0716480007; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 17:39:14 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0166.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.166]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E09428E0006 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 17:39:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin02.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F65D824556B for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 21:39:13 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76892845386.02.lamp20_340df5726d9a Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85CA6ECAE6 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 21:39:13 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: lamp20_340df5726d9a X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2368 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) by imf08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 21:39:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from p5de0bf0b.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([93.224.191.11] helo=nanos.tec.linutronix.de) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1jgxZr-0001Jg-Vu; Thu, 04 Jun 2020 23:39:08 +0200 Received: by nanos.tec.linutronix.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E240BFFBE0; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 23:39:05 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Kees Cook Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Miguel Ojeda , Alexander Potapenko , Joe Perches , Andy Whitcroft , x86@kernel.org, drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, b43-dev@lists.infradead.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] x86/mm/numa: Remove uninitialized_var() usage In-Reply-To: <202006040728.8797FAA4@keescook> References: <20200603233203.1695403-2-keescook@chromium.org> <874krr8dps.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <202006040728.8797FAA4@keescook> Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 23:39:05 +0200 Message-ID: <87zh9i7bpi.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 85CA6ECAE6 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: Kees Cook writes: >> > -#define NODE_NOT_IN_PAGE_FLAGS >> > +#define NODE_NOT_IN_PAGE_FLAGS 1 >> >> but if we ever lose the 1 then the above will silently compile the code >> within the IS_ENABLED() section out. > > That's true, yes. I considered two other ways to do this: > > 1) smallest patch, but more #ifdef: > 2) medium size, weird style: > > and 3 is what I sent: biggest, but removes #ifdef > > Any preference? >From a readbility POV I surely prefer #3. i"m just wary. Add a big fat comment to the define might mitigate that, hmm? Thanks, tglx