[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d40efb68-eb4e-4158-9dc6-5de101adefd1@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 07:56:58 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
llvm@...ts.linux.dev, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, Bill Wendling
<morbo@...gle.com>, Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] x86/reboot: KVM: Guard
nmi_shootdown_cpus_on_restart() with ifdeffery
On 4/8/25 07:36, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 07:17:51AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 4/8/25 05:19, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> Any news here? Build error is still reproducible.
>> In the end, adding the #ifdefs leads to worse code, less maintainable
>> code. I'll take the occasional actual unused static inline in a .c file
>> over a mess of #ifdefs to make the compiler happy.
>>
>> I really think that warning needs to go away in some way, shape or form.
>> Either get rid of it entirely, or kick it out of -Wall somehow. It's a
>> super pedantic warning that leads to worse code most of the time.
> Does it mean you can take Sean's approach?
It looks fine at first glance.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists