From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.187]) (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 2DDB710949 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 02:17:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.187 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713838625; cv=none; b=YNymRaEOvbsoKuDAcOeIO8mowbj+SBxJKCoAJPFSqRzbuAANZm5Sdr7bFHnM5WQUdwD9vl5D4upnO9spt5boesB2qMVoixIKDUSKYzzc6pxtAnacyf2dk+4dUZ0RpDXHF0Fk9K+KIhCvsW6k9mqmrI//eFmwS/IlkkKu2B5E9sw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713838625; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5ysTMKHeHEPNPsU9UhvdWt+UtNAlM07+Q+HOP5hWwjo=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=J1F72VoZ/cf1bPil8W5bqwg6bREHcAkdaHb35uPMrRWiUwblACPwDY1kHYXO0idBElmcz1BGS+il7pKCS3xV+iQrjg0NBeBsgWbGK6F4+C3zBFWZ1mkqesF+miUquMg4wj05lulDOwsfIKzbiKJJjUzus0QzZSb1YEuKp4/1t58= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.187 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.163.48]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4VNlzP0Bf3zvQ1n for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 10:13:53 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemi500008.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.221.188.139]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E79D318006B for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 10:16:52 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.109.254] (10.67.109.254) by kwepemi500008.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.139) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.35; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 10:16:52 +0800 Message-ID: <12f4d203-615b-0937-857e-ef0a478cd183@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 10:16:51 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.2.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] genirq: Reuse irq_is_nmi() Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Gleixner , References: <20240417085616.3785647-1-ruanjinjie@huawei.com> <87r0exun6e.ffs@tglx> From: Jinjie Ruan In-Reply-To: <87r0exun6e.ffs@tglx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.178) To kwepemi500008.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.139) On 2024/4/23 5:01, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17 2024 at 16:56, Jinjie Ruan wrote: >> >> +static bool __maybe_unused irq_is_nmi(struct irq_desc *desc) > > Seriously? What's wrong with static inline? Use "static bool" has follwoing warning: kernel/irq/internals.h:283:13: warning: ‘irq_is_nmi’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function] 283 | static bool irq_is_nmi(struct irq_desc *desc) But us "static inline bool" is ok. I'll change it to inline, thank you very much! >