On Wed, 2018-09-26 at 17:06 +-0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
+AD4 On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 04:57:32PM +-0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
+AD4 +AD4 I don't think this actually works given that rpm+AF8-status only exists
+AD4 +AD4 if CONFIG+AF8-PM is set.
+AD4
+AD4 I think it'll work as GCC does constant propagation. There are
+AD4 actually some places in the kernel that follow this pattern.
This is what gcc on my development system thinks about that proposal:
In file included from ./arch/x86/include/asm/bug.h:83:0,
from ./include/linux/bug.h:5,
from ./include/linux/thread+AF8-info.h:12,
from ./arch/x86/include/asm/preempt.h:7,
from ./include/linux/preempt.h:81,
from ./include/linux/spinlock.h:51,
from ./include/linux/seqlock.h:36,
from ./include/linux/time.h:6,
from ./include/linux/stat.h:19,
from ./include/linux/module.h:10,
from block/blk-core.c:15:
block/blk-core.c: In function +IBg-elv+AF8-next+AF8-request+IBk:
block/blk-core.c:2795:44: error: +IBg-struct request+AF8-queue+IBk has no member named +IBg-rpm+AF8-status+IBkAOw did you mean +IBg-stats+IBk?
WARN+AF8-ON+AF8-ONCE(q-+AD4-rpm+AF8-status +AD0APQ RPM+AF8-SUSPENDED)+ADs
+AF4
./include/asm-generic/bug.h:69:25: note: in definition of macro +IBg-WARN+AF8-ON+AF8-ONCE+IBk
int +AF8AXw-ret+AF8-warn+AF8-on +AD0 +ACEAIQ(condition)+ADs +AFw
+AF4AfgB+AH4AfgB+AH4AfgB+
scripts/Makefile.build:305: recipe for target 'block/blk-core.o' failed
Bart.
