Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1376868 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH] rcu: Remove some superfluous lines

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH] rcu: Remove some superfluous lines "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-04-12 16:50 +0200

#1376868 — Re: [PATCH] rcu: Remove some superfluous lines

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

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web