Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 8 Aug 2018 23:31:24 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Alan Kao <alankao@andestech.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>,
        Albert Ou <albert@sifive.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Andrew Waterman <andrew@sifive.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Darius Rad <darius@bluespec.com>, greentime@andestech.com,
        vincentc@andestech.com, zong@andestech.com, nickhu@andestech.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/5] Auto-detect whether a FPU exists
Message-ID: <20180809063124.GA26062@infradead.org>
References: <1533796003-680-1-git-send-email-alankao@andestech.com>
 <1533796003-680-6-git-send-email-alankao@andestech.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1533796003-680-6-git-send-email-alankao@andestech.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

>  extern unsigned long elf_hwcap;
> +extern bool has_fpu;
>  #endif

Doesn't this conflict with the !CONFIG_CPU stub in switch_to.h?

It seems like we should only have this definition in one place to start
with.

Otherwise this looks fine to me:

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>