public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH] rcu: Remove some superfluous lines
@ 2016-03-10  8:49 Peter Zijlstra
  2016-03-10 13:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2016-03-10  8:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Paul McKenney; +Cc: Thomas Gleixner, linux-kernel


I think you'll find this condition is superfluous, as the whole function
is under #ifdef of that same.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
---
 kernel/rcu/tree.c | 3 ---
 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index 4f7369d54de0..dd2646e56456 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -4237,9 +4237,6 @@ static void rcu_cleanup_dying_idle_cpu(int cpu, struct rcu_state *rsp)
 	struct rcu_data *rdp = per_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda, cpu);
 	struct rcu_node *rnp = rdp->mynode;  /* Outgoing CPU's rdp & rnp. */
 
-	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU))
-		return;
-
 	/* Remove outgoing CPU from mask in the leaf rcu_node structure. */
 	mask = rdp->grpmask;
 	raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(rnp, flags); /* Enforce GP memory-order guarantee. */

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] rcu: Remove some superfluous lines
  2016-03-10  8:49 [PATCH] rcu: Remove some superfluous lines Peter Zijlstra
@ 2016-03-10 13:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
  2016-03-10 13:55   ` Peter Zijlstra
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2016-03-10 13:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Peter Zijlstra; +Cc: Thomas Gleixner, linux-kernel

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 09:49:04AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> I think you'll find this condition is superfluous, as the whole function
> is under #ifdef of that same.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>

Right you are!  It got moved under that #ifdef in the process of merging
the RCU, hotplug, and swait changes, and I failed to notice.  Good catch!

I will apply this to my tree once -rc1 comes out, as it will apply to
-rcu at that point.

Or maybe we should remove the #ifdef and add IS_ENABLED() to the other
functions under that #ifdef.  Thoughts?

							Thanx, Paul

> ---
>  kernel/rcu/tree.c | 3 ---
>  1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index 4f7369d54de0..dd2646e56456 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -4237,9 +4237,6 @@ static void rcu_cleanup_dying_idle_cpu(int cpu, struct rcu_state *rsp)
>  	struct rcu_data *rdp = per_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda, cpu);
>  	struct rcu_node *rnp = rdp->mynode;  /* Outgoing CPU's rdp & rnp. */
> 
> -	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU))
> -		return;
> -
>  	/* Remove outgoing CPU from mask in the leaf rcu_node structure. */
>  	mask = rdp->grpmask;
>  	raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(rnp, flags); /* Enforce GP memory-order guarantee. */
> 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] rcu: Remove some superfluous lines
  2016-03-10 13:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
@ 2016-03-10 13:55   ` Peter Zijlstra
  2016-04-12 14:44     ` Paul E. McKenney
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2016-03-10 13:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Paul E. McKenney; +Cc: Thomas Gleixner, linux-kernel

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 05:41:46AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 09:49:04AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > I think you'll find this condition is superfluous, as the whole function
> > is under #ifdef of that same.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> 
> Right you are!  It got moved under that #ifdef in the process of merging
> the RCU, hotplug, and swait changes, and I failed to notice.  Good catch!
> 
> I will apply this to my tree once -rc1 comes out, as it will apply to
> -rcu at that point.
> 
> Or maybe we should remove the #ifdef and add IS_ENABLED() to the other
> functions under that #ifdef.  Thoughts?

I'd go with the #ifdef, its the conventional pattern.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] rcu: Remove some superfluous lines
  2016-03-10 13:55   ` Peter Zijlstra
@ 2016-04-12 14:44     ` Paul E. McKenney
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2016-04-12 14:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Peter Zijlstra; +Cc: Thomas Gleixner, linux-kernel

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 02:55:00PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 05:41:46AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 09:49:04AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > 
> > > I think you'll find this condition is superfluous, as the whole function
> > > is under #ifdef of that same.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> > 
> > Right you are!  It got moved under that #ifdef in the process of merging
> > the RCU, hotplug, and swait changes, and I failed to notice.  Good catch!
> > 
> > I will apply this to my tree once -rc1 comes out, as it will apply to
> > -rcu at that point.
> > 
> > Or maybe we should remove the #ifdef and add IS_ENABLED() to the other
> > functions under that #ifdef.  Thoughts?
> 
> I'd go with the #ifdef, its the conventional pattern.

Longer term, I am moving from #ifdef to IS_ENABLED(), as it makes for
easier detection of compiler errors in oddball combinations of Kconfig
options.  But no point in carrying redundant code in the meantime,
so queued for 4.8.

							Thanx, Paul

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2016-04-12 14:43 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-03-10  8:49 [PATCH] rcu: Remove some superfluous lines Peter Zijlstra
2016-03-10 13:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-03-10 13:55   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-12 14:44     ` Paul E. McKenney

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox