linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rcu: Remove some superfluous lines

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 10 Mar 2016 14:55:00 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Remove some superfluous lines

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 05:41:46AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 09:49:04AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > I think you'll find this condition is superfluous, as the whole function
> > is under #ifdef of that same.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> 
> Right you are!  It got moved under that #ifdef in the process of merging
> the RCU, hotplug, and swait changes, and I failed to notice.  Good catch!
> 
> I will apply this to my tree once -rc1 comes out, as it will apply to
> -rcu at that point.
> 
> Or maybe we should remove the #ifdef and add IS_ENABLED() to the other
> functions under that #ifdef.  Thoughts?

I'd go with the #ifdef, its the conventional pattern.