[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <066fa177642ce6907df06819676cd29c0745e816.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 12:13:54 +0100
From: Karolina Drobnik <karolinadrobnik@...il.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mike.rapoport@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/16] tools/include: Add cache.h stub
On Thu, 2022-01-27 at 14:00 +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 02:21:24PM +0100, Karolina Drobnik wrote:
> > +++ b/tools/include/linux/cache.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
> > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> > +#ifndef _TOOLS_LINUX_CACHE_H
> > +#define _TOOLS_LINUX_CACHE_H
> > +
> > +#define L1_CACHE_SHIFT 5
> > +#define L1_CACHE_BYTES BIT(L1_CACHE_SHIFT)
> > +
> > +#define SMP_CACHE_BYTES L1_CACHE_BYTES
> > +
> > +#endif
>
> You've added an implicit dependency on include/vdso/bits.h which
> seems
> unpleasant ...
I'll admit that I just tried to make checkpatch.pl happy with this
change. But you're right, adding such a dependency is undesirable. I
can define it as (1 << L1_CACHE_SHIFT) and ignore the warning.
Is it fine to do so for tools/testing code?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists