From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (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 A9729250E7 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2024 10:46:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arndb.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arndb.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=arndb.de header.i=@arndb.de header.b="Cwxb63r3"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="5nrcx3kc" Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93CF95C012C; Fri, 5 Jan 2024 05:46:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from imap51 ([10.202.2.101]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 05 Jan 2024 05:46:17 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=arndb.de; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1704451577; x=1704537977; bh=u0NWzru5Np WplG3MtwbrlDuQ2qJ6q4k8/PVrz6ggq5o=; b=Cwxb63r3mNFLSakIK7Ki7zERTE Rfwy3G1wOmRwhG3EPCCBJWvXH6ffzJdX56hr7Mc8cO58elCzMQf4F3sjP9VdyB+V Xv9+4ou2noNAjl9hm/HCC0odicrH3mz4C93d+h3gcQei7rrOEa5cS8zzibf6CluV ogbaaa/F/VKRdiaMk+7+rhVVAuxL8YPyqQcUxRN7C/5Uz33qkqXPPeoCZLoL07+2 AIiIjaL8BuZWRkAUL8JK8rr88Cmdew/xgkt6rLJWTLgI/bYMZXkp1VR5/AzfEOg/ YjgsEh5eTNfAmImCfFqv9A5ELhXN3V0nNB1+VfmCEkn9bqi8OfGalIJdPBog== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm2; t=1704451577; x=1704537977; bh=u0NWzru5NpWplG3MtwbrlDuQ2qJ6 q4k8/PVrz6ggq5o=; b=5nrcx3kcmY25shycuY70VQ0wyoF5MBa4qLEHPk0SX1i1 851AddFTWSWC/oi4esje8q59Wxi2jTQASPLCHKPJ1WPrJgxLATg9eYM1jrbdXZGf 0qspfrrpcw2JfzZ067E+OwSznC6SLL2bJBYwggyRrI6L3PDR4E3vQZAsY1PscOUX +XwEti3L75KYqBJIOP67nLMJ9S0SbmhtK0BCnhlEhxEGtpPaiN84RNJdPRW8VvqA Qtz6eK4YQvnlDBYt8vQph5YMbw7Vbm8DldmEzPGYp2X4kIW7HuCH1Svpq0ZxbjpW 9tzy+6BNRTcECTgsV8PMbO7SpqY1oJF9w/DZ5IxzYw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvkedrvdegledgudejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvfevufgtsehttdertderredtnecuhfhrohhmpedftehr nhguuceuvghrghhmrghnnhdfuceorghrnhgusegrrhhnuggsrdguvgeqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepffehueegteeihfegtefhjefgtdeugfegjeelheejueethfefgeeghfektdek teffnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheprg hrnhgusegrrhhnuggsrdguvg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i56a14606:Fastmail Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 6FA06B6008F; Fri, 5 Jan 2024 05:46:16 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.9.0-alpha0-1364-ga51d5fd3b7-fm-20231219.001-ga51d5fd3 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <582b9eb1-b50b-4c41-80b4-9cc1444a7801@app.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20240105041458.126602-3-leobras@redhat.com> References: <20240105041458.126602-3-leobras@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2024 11:43:42 +0100 From: "Arnd Bergmann" To: "Leonardo Bras" , "Oleg Nesterov" , "Catalin Marinas" , "Will Deacon" , "Mark Brown" , "Mark Rutland" , "Steven Rostedt" , "Guo Hui" Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] arm64: remove unnecessary ifdefs around is_compat_task() Content-Type: text/plain On Fri, Jan 5, 2024, at 05:15, Leonardo Bras wrote: > Currently some parts of the codebase will test for CONFIG_COMPAT before > testing is_compat_task(). > > is_compat_task() is a inlined function only present on CONFIG_COMPAT. > On the other hand, for !CONFIG_COMPAT, we have in linux/compat.h: > > #define is_compat_task() (0) > > Since we have this define available in every usage of is_compat_task() for > !CONFIG_COMPAT, it's unnecessary to keep the ifdefs, since the compiler is > smart enough to optimize-out those snippets on CONFIG_COMPAT=n > > Signed-off-by: Leonardo Bras Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann