linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/15] tick: Remove useless oneshot ifdeffery

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZbuZyu2XmRO-UVCY@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2024 14:16:58 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Peng Liu <liupeng17@...ovo.com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/15] tick: Remove useless oneshot ifdeffery

Le Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 10:40:10AM +0100, Anna-Maria Behnsen a écrit :
> Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org> writes:
> 
> > tick-sched.c is only built when CONFIG_TICK_ONESHOT=y, which is selected
> > only if CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON=y or CONFIG_HIGH_RES_TIMERS=y. Therefore
> > the related ifdeferry in this file is needless and can be removed.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
> 
> It's a nitpick, but shouldn't the ordering of sob and reviewed-by be the
> other way round?

I've seen it both ways here and there, I'm not sure if there is a strict rule
for it...

> Thanks,
> 
> 	Anna-Maria
>