Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] mm: remove odd HAVE_PTE_SPECIAL
From: Laurent Dufour <hidden>
Date: 2018-04-11 10:32:27
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-doc, linux-mm, linux-riscv, linux-sh, lkml, sparclinux
On 11/04/2018 11:09, Christophe LEROY wrote:
Le 11/04/2018 à 11:03, Laurent Dufour a écrit :quoted
On 11/04/2018 10:58, Christophe LEROY wrote:quoted
Le 11/04/2018 à 10:03, Laurent Dufour a écrit :quoted
Remove the additional define HAVE_PTE_SPECIAL and rely directly on CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL. There is no functional change introduced by this patch Signed-off-by: Laurent Dufour <redacted> --- mm/memory.c | 19 ++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c index 96910c625daa..7f7dc7b2a341 100644 --- a/mm/memory.c +++ b/mm/memory.c@@ -817,17 +817,12 @@ static void print_bad_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma,unsigned long addr, * PFNMAP mappings in order to support COWable mappings. * */ -#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL -# define HAVE_PTE_SPECIAL 1 -#else -# define HAVE_PTE_SPECIAL 0 -#endif struct page *_vm_normal_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr, pte_t pte, bool with_public_device) { unsigned long pfn = pte_pfn(pte); - if (HAVE_PTE_SPECIAL) { + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL)) { if (likely(!pte_special(pte))) goto check_pfn; if (vma->vm_ops && vma->vm_ops->find_special_page)@@ -862,7 +857,7 @@ struct page *_vm_normal_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma,unsigned long addr, return NULL; } - /* !HAVE_PTE_SPECIAL case follows: */ + /* !CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL case follows: */ if (unlikely(vma->vm_flags & (VM_PFNMAP|VM_MIXEDMAP))) { if (vma->vm_flags & VM_MIXEDMAP) {@@ -881,7 +876,8 @@ struct page *_vm_normal_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma,unsigned long addr, if (is_zero_pfn(pfn)) return NULL; -check_pfn: + +check_pfn: __maybe_unusedSee belowquoted
if (unlikely(pfn > highest_memmap_pfn)) { print_bad_pte(vma, addr, pte, NULL); return NULL;@@ -891,7 +887,7 @@ struct page *_vm_normal_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma,unsigned long addr, * NOTE! We still have PageReserved() pages in the page tables. * eg. VDSO mappings can cause them to exist. */ -out: +out: __maybe_unusedWhy do you need that change ? There is no reason for the compiler to complain. It would complain if the goto was within a #ifdef, but all the purpose of using IS_ENABLED() is to allow the compiler to properly handle all possible cases. That's all the force of IS_ENABLED() compared to ifdefs, and that the reason why they are plebicited, ref Linux Codying style for a detailed explanation.Fair enough. Should I submit a v4 just to remove these so ugly __maybe_unused ?Most likely, unless the mm maintainer agrees to remove them by himself when applying your patch ?
That was my point. Andrew, should I send a v4 or could you wipe the 2 __maybe_unsued when applying the patch ? Thanks, Laurent.