On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 12:13:54PM +0100, Karolina Drobnik wrote: > On Thu, 2022-01-27 at 14:00 +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 02:21:24PM +0100, Karolina Drobnik wrote: > > > +++ b/tools/include/linux/cache.h > > > @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ > > > +#ifndef _TOOLS_LINUX_CACHE_H > > > +#define _TOOLS_LINUX_CACHE_H > > > + > > > +#define L1_CACHE_SHIFT 5 > > > +#define L1_CACHE_BYTES BIT(L1_CACHE_SHIFT) > > > + > > > +#define SMP_CACHE_BYTES L1_CACHE_BYTES > > > + > > > +#endif > > > > You've added an implicit dependency on include/vdso/bits.h which > > seems > > unpleasant ... > > I'll admit that I just tried to make checkpatch.pl happy with this > change. But you're right, adding such a dependency is undesirable. I > can define it as (1 << L1_CACHE_SHIFT) and ignore the warning. > > Is it fine to do so for tools/testing code? checkpatch warnings are recommendations. Only fix checkpatch errors.
