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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87il38i8l0.fsf@somnus>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2024 15:04:59 +0100
From: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
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

Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org> writes:

> 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...
>

As it is for the tip maintainers, they have some rules - I don't know
how strictly they are used :)

  Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst