From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 11:07 AM > > On 2/27/23 10:46, Michael Kelley wrote: > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c b/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c > > index 766ffe3..9f668d2 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c > > @@ -211,6 +211,13 @@ u64 arch_irq_stat_cpu(unsigned int cpu) > > #ifdef CONFIG_X86_MCE_THRESHOLD > > sum += irq_stats(cpu)->irq_threshold_count; > > #endif > > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_HV_CALLBACK_VECTOR > > + sum += irq_stats(cpu)->irq_hv_callback_count; > > +#endif > > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HYPERV) > > + sum += irq_stats(cpu)->irq_hv_reenlightenment_count; > > + sum += irq_stats(cpu)->hyperv_stimer0_count; > > +#endif > > #ifdef CONFIG_X86_MCE > > sum += per_cpu(mce_exception_count, cpu); > > sum += per_cpu(mce_poll_count, cpu); > > This seems fine, especially since arch_show_interrupts() has them. But, > what's with the "#if IS_ENABLED" versus the plain #ifdef? Is there some > difference I'm missing? Why not just be consistent with the other code > and use a plain #ifdef for both? Dave -- With Sean's explanation for #if IS_ENABLED, are you OK with giving this an ACK as an x86 maintainer? This patch has been hanging around for a while now ... Michael
