On Fri, 2016-03-04 at 10:31 +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-03-03 at 17:52 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> >
> > > 3. Added an error message when including
> > > powerpc/include/asm/livepatch.h without HAVE_LIVEPATCH
> >
> > I don't know why we want to do that, I don't see how it is helpful. It doesn't
> > even do what it says:
> >
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_LIVEPATCH
> > ...
> > > +#else /* CONFIG_LIVEPATCH */
> > > +#error Include linux/livepatch.h, not asm/livepatch.h
> > > +#endif /* CONFIG_LIVEPATCH */
> >
> > If I turn on CONFIG_LIVEPATCH then I can quite happily include asm/livepatch.h
> > and not get an error. So the check doesn't do what the message suggests.
>
> Well, yes. I looked into the archives to find if there was a reason to
> even introduce it. It was not. It came up during a review process of the
> livepatching patch set somehow and we left it there. I only changed the
> error message to the mentioned one because we deemed it was better.
Thanks for looking into it.
> > And on x86 & s390 it does:
> >
> > #else
> > #error Live patching support is disabled; check CONFIG_LIVEPATCH
> > #endif
>
> This is the old message. See 383bf44d1a8b ("livepatch: change the error
> message in asm/livepatch.h header files").
>
> Anyway, it really does not mean much. I'll send a patch for s390 and x86
> to remove it completely in a minute.
Thanks. I know it's not a big deal, but the kernel is complicated enough
without extra code we don't really need :)
cheers
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe live-patching" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
