[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72kqxdGrZO7NokY6Zkh=e8owBVJCpK5DxWLnwiuxyzCybg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 10:28:30 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] vdso: remove meaningless undefining CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 8:12 AM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> It it about two years since 28128c61e08e. Nobody has reported a
Nit: "It it" -> "it is"
> It is ugly and unreliable to attempt to undefine a CONFIG option from
> C files, and anyway the inlining heuristic is up to the compiler.
+1
Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cheers,
Miguel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists