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 29B6219E97B 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=1746194707; cv=none; b=acViGf/XkdNvlyczIDkExWsTvVZJL1btJWyKIe8f2vvFdq49WzFw7+3Vi5IBMibwfp7WBO34TWnFEjtBwdub0+uboD+6QZ3dyzlpCajcuSjieeV9fxQfYpCmc7hp3OvQJm+sgpbqlP+LMwUNmJwcgsaukh7OxIUN2+TRneLiU5M= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1746194707; 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=SoRmbCLYgpOiEDlUMC1WMW19VP1jo3ivRQlpZfnNTp7mPdrqFASQxJlntmE4irHqObmWQuF1ifv4jOK/d3VpwQgPPuHXEyrbnwC/wHhFWB5ytW9Rr6HtM2fMBgZWFqrnC6n3830oEdCRBQBROkNwglyH/p8j2wzInOnQF8BSBRA= 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=dm4pKEcx; 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="dm4pKEcx" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1746194707; x=1777730707; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=2jBbUmVOB62hHyKFi47tXceA9+6d1vaBcgdLP5N/4fE=; b=dm4pKEcxYyyJps+w1nEOVC89iVNiLTaa/Dv9UvbmNnDKtnYOGYT3Uklt zM5/1D9+RM+WnS4g7jXZIecKKVLuTovJlV/jmvaNmbbeMmhjpC3IA0UHK uRWz6wpqDdAeVDd4iiSC4O8Sxfza8EhyHyV51VZLtaZ5sFOxjwwHzD1KT CeG7E0J/y+fblOprKgmuYl49iQsjS2GAHT9lXSJcU5eY7XbNiL80FRfzW 7F7vC6Su+KlXvh3MBbyxuNDmsBNRc1CNHIx3fy/9OGYU2LXR6BUPJlcQO YVgVqsdXkJvyio0K7+jHpQAFtL9v7Koe5kHharOBvzBr/G4H7ItIaY4Qk A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: lM+sRtVERbKIAO0tmTzpow== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 64gutoeYRGKN7r51AE2gxg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11421"; a="70377083" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.15,256,1739865600"; d="scan'208";a="70377083" 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: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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