[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56498D0A.3070000@synopsys.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 13:30:10 +0530
From: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
To: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
CC: "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
arcml <linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: using IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_xyz) effectively
Hi,
I've been using IS_ENABLED for some time and once in a while run into an issue
which prevents seamless use. Hence posing this question to experts in the area.
C macro processor evaluates the ensuing control block even if IS_ENABLED evaluates
to false. This requires dummy #defines or worse still removing usage of IS_ENABLED
altogether.
e.g. In example below even for ARCOMPACT builds, we need the ARCV2 specific define
ARCV2_IRQ_DEF_PRIO.
void arch_cpu_idle(void)
{
if (is_isa_arcompact()) { <---- IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ISA_ARCOMPACT)
__asm__("sleep 0x3");
} else {
const int arg = 0x10 | ARCV2_IRQ_DEF_PRIO;
__asm__("sleep 0x10");
}
}
One could argue that the interface needs to be cleanly defined to not have such
specific #defines in common code in first place. However sometime that becomes
just too tedious.
Is there a way to get around by this ?
Thx,
-Vineet
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists