From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Lezcano Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] sched: idle: Encapsulate the code to compile it out Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 10:59:11 +0200 Message-ID: <53635E5F.8070100@linaro.org> References: <1398859263-7632-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <2783362.8r7SvVhudq@vostro.rjw.lan> <2735426.75qSjG3M6Y@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mail-we0-f178.google.com ([74.125.82.178]:37742 "EHLO mail-we0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751159AbaEBI7J (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2014 04:59:09 -0400 Received: by mail-we0-f178.google.com with SMTP id u56so3338596wes.37 for ; Fri, 02 May 2014 01:59:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2735426.75qSjG3M6Y@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@elte.hu, amit.kucheria@linaro.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nicolas Pitre On 05/01/2014 12:56 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, May 01, 2014 12:47:25 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 02:01:02 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>> Encapsulate the large portion of cpuidle_idle_call inside another >>> function so when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE=3Dn, the code will be compiled out= =2E >>> Also that is benefitial for the clarity of the code as it removes >>> a nested indentation level. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano >> >> Well, this conflicts with >> >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4071541/ >> >> which you haven't commented on and I still want cpuidle_select() to = be able to >> return negative values because of >> >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4089631/ >> >> (and I have one more patch on top of these two that requires this). > > Moreover (along the lines of Nico said) after https://patchwork.kerne= l.org/patch/4071541/ > we actually don't need the #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE in your patch, beca= use cpuidle_select() > for CONFIG_CPU_IDLE unset is a static inline returning a negative num= ber and the compiler > should optimize out the blocks that depend on it being non-negative. Thanks for the head up. Actually that was to solve a compilation issue with the next patch when= =20 adding the cpuidle state in the struct rq. When the option CPU_IDLE is not set, the code assinging the cpu idle=20 state in the rq is still there while in the struct rq the field is=20 compiled out with the ifdef macro. If I rely on the compiler=20 optimization, the compilation error will happen. --=20 Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software fo= r ARM SoCs =46ollow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog