From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Valentin Rothberg <valentinrothberg@gmail.com>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Patrick Plagwitz <patrick.plagwitz@fau.de>,
Andreas Ziegler <ziegler@cs.fau.de>,
Daniel Lohmann <dl@cs.fau.de>
Subject: Re: kernel: stop_machine: report (un)dead code (and feedback request)
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 08:42:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151127074224.GA23839@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151126145234.GL23362@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
* Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 03:45:59PM +0100, Valentin Rothberg wrote:
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > your commit 4c477de14237 ("kernel: remove stop_machine() Kconfig
> > dependency") has shown up in today's linux-next tree (20151126).
> > The commit changes the #ifdef condition in kernel/stop_machine.c
> > from/to:
> >
> > -#if defined(CONFIG_STOP_MACHINE) && defined(CONFIG_SMP)
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_SMP) || defined(CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU)
> >
> > Although this change fixes certain configs on X86, the condition now is
> > a tautology since CONFIG_SMP is already required to compile the file:
> >
> > kernel/Makefile:65:obj-$(CONFIG_SMP) += stop_machine.o
> >
> > AFAIU, we can safely remove this #ifdef?
>
> That seems logical. The argument in favour of it would be to keep the
> ifdeffery around the function defintion the same as the function
> declaration in stop_machine.h.
But this would introduce a bit of fragility: we could re-introduce the same
regression that the commit fixes, if we ever changed the SMP dependency for
stop_machine.c.
Thanks,
Ingo
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-27 7:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-26 14:45 kernel: stop_machine: report (un)dead code (and feedback request) Valentin Rothberg
2015-11-26 14:52 ` Chris Wilson
2015-11-27 7:42 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20151127074224.GA23839@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
--cc=dl@cs.fau.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=patrick.plagwitz@fau.de \
--cc=valentinrothberg@gmail.com \
--cc=ziegler@cs.fau.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox