* KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> or, following #ifdef ? > > >> > > >> #if defined(CONFIG_SPARSE_IRQ) || defined(CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS) > > >> > > >> /* > > >> * lockdep: we want to handle all irq_desc locks as a single lock-class: > > >> */ > > >> static struct lock_class_key irq_desc_lock_class; > > > > > > instead of increasing the #ifdef jungle, how about removing some? For > > > example is this distinction: > > > > > >> > #ifndef CONFIG_SPARSE_IRQ > > > > > > really needed? We should use symmetric lock class annotations, regardless > > > of how irq_desc[] is laid out. > > > > it seems make much sense. I'll test your idea tommorow. > > Ingo, you are right. I confirmed your idea works well. > > > I tested following ten pattern. > > o handle.c can compile without any warnings? > > SPARSE_IRQ TRACE_IRQ LOCKDEP > ------------------------------------------ > n n n > Y n n > n Y n > n n Y > Y Y n > N Y Y > Y n Y > Y Y Y > > > o builded kernel works well? (tested on x86_64) > > SPARSE_IRQ TRACE_IRQ LOCKDEP > ------------------------------------------ > n n n > Y Y Y > > > == > Subject: [PATCH] irq: remove unnecessary ifdef Applied to tip/irq/sparseirq, thanks! Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
