[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250502143058.GV4439@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2025 16:30:58 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
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 Fri, May 02, 2025 at 07:24:37AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 5/2/25 07:04, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Can it be applied, please? The problem still persists as of today (v6.15-rc4).
>
> I fundamentally disagree with the idea that the kernel programmer should
> be doing the work of telling the compiler *exactly* when a static inline
> function is unused. Compilers are good at that, humans are not.
>
> The "fixes" for these issues generally make the code worse, not better.
>
> I'd frankly rather have a kernel with some unused 'static inline'
> functions in .c files than one filled with #ifdefs to shut up the compiler.
Yeah, this unused function warning nonsense is terribly annoying :/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists