From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.9]) (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 9BDF8254876 for ; Fri, 2 May 2025 14:05:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.9 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1746194706; cv=none; b=X8A9fxyzA16xw3VXyhnzavw45KRti/dFUuVnpNThmTRm3n++449G//vjbYbyaayMgXeBHviEASDGtzCIu445A83gyPWc0/QeSrwEa1DeZ5jO54iAnX/Grm+TQO2UPB6K2kwHQytC0mnQKpq5+nnCJfbovQx9aLINhP8sg7oldx8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1746194706; c=relaxed/simple; bh=2jBbUmVOB62hHyKFi47tXceA9+6d1vaBcgdLP5N/4fE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=XYgGygVU+SA4M5SkGNlherHWgNUPkTeYeXVM/exI88Yfm520cHoZzx/60r6KXdhlFMw/tZ9O1et0GPTcpwsc3rALVJ3JFRqyO2Z6rlXZQK7JBhBznWo9XbNs7d9fIXvGSdBXqdZM7Zd2T8VjMcV6IoKvPHQJnFzYe9xum+uFlM8= 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=jo4tS0eE; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.9 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="jo4tS0eE" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1746194705; x=1777730705; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=2jBbUmVOB62hHyKFi47tXceA9+6d1vaBcgdLP5N/4fE=; b=jo4tS0eEXX5oIZEJ83EbU42Sm+2K1KrWfn/NdEgIL83ugEaJgnY+aBln FW+p4B2thEps9wyzLdk2i0hhiggAUHXRCn1wshiTNB3VpTKWS5zJ1qIRo QhLWuMg1+bf182ThgV19G9Liwnad5ChQR2j8XADlIwOp7vA2+ofisi4hF Z6UUQWswlFdFy0doD5lMXslwruuwa64KkVzqjCeuYmr9djyclQ0ZUTUBi JcbWT0jav8MWzqZdT9htv1xIR3XjPCdKMoLCvhrPOV7TFG2pbtqX4BwJW cBZdDwGStUmh7Gjf6/zy6b6sR5KcIsiZ8puVvjMj1GT0t99RxQyk6QCBG Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: bxpsaQoOSkqttgu4P5KgmA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: vt3Jew+ASr65R45uPBzj7g== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11421"; a="70377084" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.15,256,1739865600"; d="scan'208";a="70377084" Received: from orviesa005.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.145]) by orvoesa101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 May 2025 07:04:39 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 4pNeTD7QQ82JG1z/2N940Q== X-CSE-MsgGUID: Gqq/pudgSIiV3jOC/4Kytg== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.15,256,1739865600"; d="scan'208";a="139826385" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.55]) by orviesa005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 May 2025 07:04:35 -0700 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uAr0B-00000002Dab-3W5P; Fri, 02 May 2025 17:04:31 +0300 Date: Fri, 2 May 2025 17:04:31 +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 07:56:58AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 4/8/25 07:36, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > 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? > > It looks fine at first glance. Can it be applied, please? The problem still persists as of today (v6.15-rc4). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko