Quoting Lucas De Marchi (2021-10-01 08:40:41)
> When trying to bring IS_ACTIVE to linux/kconfig.h I thought it wouldn't
> provide much value just encapsulating it in a boolean context. So I also
> added the support for handling undefined macros as the IS_ENABLED()
> counterpart. However the feedback received from Masahiro Yamada was that
> it is too ugly, not providing much value. And just wrapping in a boolean
> context is too dumb - we could simply open code it.
>
> As detailed in commit babaab2f4738 ("drm/i915: Encapsulate kconfig
> constant values inside boolean predicates"), the IS_ACTIVE macro was
> added to workaround a compilation warning. However after checking again
> our current uses of IS_ACTIVE it turned out there is only
> 1 case in which it would potentially trigger a warning. All the others
> can simply use the shorter version, without wrapping it in any macro.
> And even that single one didn't trigger any warning in gcc 10.3.
>
> So here I'm dialing all the way back to simply removing the macro. If it
> triggers warnings in future we may change the few cases to check for > 0
> or != 0. Another possibility would be to use the great "not not
> operator" for all positive checks, which would allow us to maintain
> consistency. However let's try first the simplest form though, hopefully
> we don't hit broken compilers spitting a warning:
You didn't prevent the compilation warning this re-introduces.
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_config.c:11 i915_fence_context_timeout() warn: should this be a bitwise op?
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c:1679 i915_request_wait() warn: should this be a bitwise op?
-Chris
