[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20250303200815.53007fb79e5049a99f24c999@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 20:08:15 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, kevin.brodsky@....com, riel@...riel.com,
vishal.moola@...il.com, david@...hat.com, jannh@...gle.com,
hughd@...gle.com, willy@...radead.org, yuzhao@...gle.com,
muchun.song@...ux.dev, will@...nel.org, aneesh.kumar@...nel.org,
npiggin@...il.com, arnd@...db.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
rppt@...nel.org, alexghiti@...osinc.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-csky@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
linux-openrisc@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
linux-um@...ts.infradead.org, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6 update] mm: pgtable: convert some architectures
to use tlb_remove_ptdesc()
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:31:07 +0800 Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 3/4/25 7:53 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 15:26:03 +0800 Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Now, the nine architectures of csky, hexagon, loongarch, m68k, mips,
> >> nios2, openrisc, sh and um do not select CONFIG_MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE,
> >> and just call pagetable_dtor() + tlb_remove_page_ptdesc() (the wrapper of
> >> tlb_remove_page()). This is the same as the implementation of
> >> tlb_remove_{ptdesc|table}() under !CONFIG_MMU_GATHER_TABLE_FREE, so
> >> convert these architectures to use tlb_remove_ptdesc().
> >>
> >
> > checkpatch warns.
> >
> > Do these things have to be macros? Switching to static inline fixes
> > the unused-arg warning in a nice fashion.
>
> This can be switched to static inline. In addition, I found that alpha,
> arc, microblaze, parisc, sparc32 and xtensa also have the unused-arg
> issue. Do I need to add a new patch to fix all of them, or just fix the
> newly added 11 warnings?
I guess leave things as they are now. Switching all these to C
functions can be addressed at a later time?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists