[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4iijhdXnD-4PuHkzbhhPra8eCRZ=df3XTE=z-efbQmVww@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 23:11:10 -0800
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"Elliott, Robert (Persistent Memory)" <elliott@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] x86, mce: Add __mcsafe_copy()
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Luck, Tony <tony.luck@...el.com> wrote:
> You were heading towards:
>
> ld: undefined __mcsafe_copy
True, we'd also need a dummy mcsafe_copy() definition to compile it
out in the disabled case.
> since that is also inside the #ifdef.
>
> Weren't you going to "select" this?
>
I do select it, but by randconfig I still need to handle the
CONFIG_X86_MCE=n case.
> I'm seriously wondering whether the ifdef still makes sense. Now I don't have an extra exception table and routines to sort/search/fixup, it doesn't seem as useful as it was a few iterations ago.
Either way is ok with me. That said, the extra definitions to allow
it compile out when not enabled don't seem too onerous.
--
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