[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2f7a0d65-afc2-4592-935a-30cc324104c6@kernel.dk>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 12:10:03 -0700
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>,
Caleb Sander Mateos <csander@...estorage.com>
Cc: io-uring@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_uring/waitid: remove #ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
On 2/24/25 12:10 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 2/24/25 17:55, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 2/24/25 10:53 AM, Caleb Sander Mateos wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 9:44?AM Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/24/25 10:23 AM, Caleb Sander Mateos wrote:
>>>>> io_is_compat() is already defined to return false if CONFIG_COMPAT is
>>>>> disabled. So remove the additional #ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT guards. Let the
>>>>> compiler optimize out the dead code when CONFIG_COMPAT is disabled.
>>>>
>>>> Would you mind if I fold this into Pavel's patch? I can keep it
>>>> standalone too, just let me know.
>>>
>>> Fine by me, though I thought Pavel was suggesting keeping it separate:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/da109d01-7aab-4205-bbb1-f5f1387f1847@gmail.com/T/#u
>>
>> I'm reading it as he has other stuff that will go on top. I don't see
>> any reason to double stage this part, might as well remove the
>> CONFIG dependency at the same time, if it's doable.
>>
>> Pavel?
>
> I'm not sure why you'd want that, but I don't mind
Just because it imho should've been in the initial commit, so I'd
consider it more of a fixup commit. But if you're fine with it, I'll
fold it in with a note.
--
Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists