On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 08:50 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2015-04-23 08:11, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > @@ -103,6 +98,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(irq_work_queue_on);
> > /* Enqueue the irq work @work on the current CPU */
> > bool irq_work_queue(struct irq_work *work)
> > {
> > + bool realtime = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL);
> > + bool raise = false;
> > +
> > /* Only queue if not already pending */
> > if (!irq_work_claim(work))
> > return false;
> > @@ -110,25 +108,22 @@ bool irq_work_queue(struct irq_work *wor
> > /* Queue the entry and raise the IPI if needed. */
> > preempt_disable();
> >
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL
> > - if (work->flags & IRQ_WORK_HARD_IRQ) {
> > + if (realtime && (work->flags & IRQ_WORK_HARD_IRQ)) {
> > if (llist_add(&work->llnode,
> > this_cpu_ptr(&hirq_work_list)))
>
> This boils down to
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_X
> some_type x;
> #endif
> ...
>
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X) && ...)
> use(x);
>
> And here we even have an indirection for IS_ENABLED via that local
> bool
> variable. Is that pattern OK for Linux? Does it compile in all
> supported
> optimization levels of all supported compilers?
I hope it all goes away, that being what IS_ENABLED() is there for.
-Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
