[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190625075650.GF30815@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 09:56:50 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/16] mm: consolidate the get_user_pages*
implementations
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 11:41:31AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > static bool gup_fast_permitted(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
> > {
> > - return true;
> > + return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_FAST_GUP) ? true : false;
>
> The ?: is needed with IS_ENABLED?
It shouldn't, I'll fix it up.
> I'd suggest to revise this block a tiny bit:
>
> -#ifndef gup_fast_permitted
> +#if !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_FAST_GUP) || !defined(gup_fast_permitted)
> /*
> * Check if it's allowed to use __get_user_pages_fast() for the range, or
> * we need to fall back to the slow version:
> */
> -bool gup_fast_permitted(unsigned long start, int nr_pages)
> +static bool gup_fast_permitted(unsigned long start, int nr_pages)
> {
>
> Just in case some future arch code mismatches the header and kconfig..
IS_ENABLED outside a function doesn't really make sense. But I'll
just life the IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_FAST_GUP) checks into the two
callers.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists