From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5288E1E5203 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 2025 14:36:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.15 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744122975; cv=none; b=FMFPqT6C+/SAbV+ghUhjUtMs9tmWhKSS97HrUagkjnRAEdySM0wPARFGzQGOFwlwx9SAEKkOcY/yPKU1rzTad9jvo/4cVuSqcbNyhG0MNkgcVdATF+h4aLpyNPHeq74ihHPeGB9znT+Gh+RNdgDh9A2A+y8f0gYOSqov7X6XkBg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744122975; c=relaxed/simple; bh=1FfTJO/QLlag6WFx411/x8xKsrT7nnIgrMSC3imzVtY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Ny7qSWEReTV0FFJqmfS47zqYbOYTHEQhFiYbotYzQJV7D7CV5xNBEvhRZg+LsHEkhr4FbcfchL/JLHuwi/XLq5C0KLO4UWJQkw2XOcxvLwVGZJZLdTWM6ccWnRbISF0PDsFnEMTAj4AL0lNq6zcXbBF8Iy04BzX9Nno5oTekQLw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=LV7/MKYS; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.15 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="LV7/MKYS" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1744122974; x=1775658974; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=1FfTJO/QLlag6WFx411/x8xKsrT7nnIgrMSC3imzVtY=; b=LV7/MKYSZLv6vzs6s8KqFOgyjVo8xEkQzX/ILUJDonFQFCVFPca7Hr5/ BZ7HNuPm6DVFVHn1NNBRYjZVWxpitBN4vsFhkWClqeDJ4PbKfjwIs37Rm mTS0jDxRE+/PkTVXBg3aw3XmsbE3/VvbuwBw+4FJMpj5WeS8U45uQRYDV HIXmteVyWkE2gDvvH/vY2oCURmvC5qs7MgNGsvBQMRujCCpybROGUymXr 2yCg52S3kYRC45p+gUJ3Z1sqv+ewjDHwcwOrJEYZ1xJ/9cxj3xtf+YUTT o/XWfw9yqDcr+WVXAhPRFiV8/Fly/G29ginWDfHECkxudyIa3C9clS2RI A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: yZ/2YMHdSCefagyx9RAh3g== X-CSE-MsgGUID: U5sFu79VT+OIRqUne6C0zQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11397"; a="49218619" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.15,198,1739865600"; d="scan'208";a="49218619" Received: from orviesa003.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.143]) by orvoesa107.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Apr 2025 07:36:14 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 2TbrZd5ATWOS8rTjrm1t2g== X-CSE-MsgGUID: I2tCfs2+RZyIG3+tq+DqJQ== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.15,198,1739865600"; d="scan'208";a="133157273" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.58]) by orviesa003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Apr 2025 07:36:10 -0700 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1u2A3b-0000000AQkH-0OCL; Tue, 08 Apr 2025 17:36:07 +0300 Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 17:36:06 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Dave Hansen Cc: Sean Christopherson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Nathan Chancellor , Nick Desaulniers , Bill Wendling , Justin Stitt Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] x86/reboot: KVM: Guard nmi_shootdown_cpus_on_restart() with ifdeffery Message-ID: References: <20241008191555.2336659-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: llvm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 07:17:51AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 4/8/25 05:19, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > Any news here? Build error is still reproducible. > > In the end, adding the #ifdefs leads to worse code, less maintainable > code. I'll take the occasional actual unused static inline in a .c file > over a mess of #ifdefs to make the compiler happy. > > I really think that warning needs to go away in some way, shape or form. > Either get rid of it entirely, or kick it out of -Wall somehow. It's a > super pedantic warning that leads to worse code most of the time. Does it mean you can take Sean's approach? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko