Received: by 2002:ac0:a5a7:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id m36-v6csp1686143imm; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 23:44:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA+uWPwXrjhKlouGZvQwupVt1CkA0piRDKp3+q9AzRxtubGgXIyW8fDI++dskiu8hVxlAwSNJX4v X-Received: by 2002:a63:f414:: with SMTP id g20-v6mr856572pgi.407.1533797090839; Wed, 08 Aug 2018 23:44:50 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1533797090; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=obkY6qoSgtjTQfAq+TpnX1PORkTUYN7jUDFW2lSieWF1cTxBd9z/OC55m0PCy4Zpfk 5A9dfjAvPA+iv6y4dgOMYNoCecAbjGCflNZie76xlYSZzHHKBVw1Mtw8gtVFZqKuEcgn k3cq2mAlQBxKLnQI97GLWTe6RKlmv1dGWU4Jl1syx0W/VL7kt6vnk7L0GbYHcN0RiqrB SN4MdSbt8MqhW0BWlN9MtqhDC4AXRO1Y54jm82PF0SUeB8uUHCY6QQ5rcLimY9ydjRNR oc+Cu1r2UpPFikMQxOunX8D9GvUinkph91/T6eqOosF9S/5gDQ7BV2KAbkCf4mHyQyXt 6HZw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date:arc-authentication-results; bh=wUvK3yehW80egMYCsZi/nDNJkKPlq3SK462h/J1+z3Y=; b=XdEtUyI91hp1xY6DgAHeCZ23ZUkoTBYSsH3ZJfd2IDGt5Pu0GS+MtQwGnzRXFS+E1B mLFV9JQX/d0zU56RP13Mz3y0JjyNagFbdpSjzqPLB754Y8oQbnrpshdjZp0cPRQVZTlN nJookC+uM+l6JqoKD7pgPpZRW6JyxHQwBoTpTuDs30YSWTGQmLdDQHtP4U0CrJyPG9wW LriVyrhAJMNrUEGtJwLfc2/tcEDsp+dfYS4ApiyKJQWHh23y23IMo1VPm3xrz6AF3Hp+ 9Hnm15Ix+3lAAC/gg+zKptXjBBoE6LrrsZhNMb4mRBNighdmPtkZQOqk+/9jFZCG2OG6 HdqQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id f3-v6si5052986pld.366.2018.08.08.23.44.35; Wed, 08 Aug 2018 23:44:50 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728016AbeHIJHG (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 9 Aug 2018 05:07:06 -0400 Received: from exmail.andestech.com ([59.124.169.137]:60595 "EHLO ATCSQR.andestech.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727237AbeHIJHG (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2018 05:07:06 -0400 Received: from mail.andestech.com (atcpcs16.andestech.com [10.0.1.222]) by ATCSQR.andestech.com with ESMTP id w796gcAc089772; Thu, 9 Aug 2018 14:42:38 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from alankao@andestech.com) Received: from andestech.com (10.0.1.85) by ATCPCS16.andestech.com (10.0.1.222) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.123.3; Thu, 9 Aug 2018 14:43:35 +0800 Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 14:43:36 +0800 From: Alan Kao To: Christoph Hellwig CC: , Andrew Waterman , "Arnd Bergmann" , , , Darius Rad , Palmer Dabbelt , , Albert Ou , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/5] Auto-detect whether a FPU exists Message-ID: <20180809064336.GA18746@andestech.com> References: <1533796003-680-1-git-send-email-alankao@andestech.com> <1533796003-680-6-git-send-email-alankao@andestech.com> <20180809063124.GA26062@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180809063124.GA26062@infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Originating-IP: [10.0.1.85] X-DNSRBL: X-MAIL: ATCSQR.andestech.com w796gcAc089772 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 11:31:24PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > extern unsigned long elf_hwcap; > > +extern bool has_fpu; > > #endif > > Doesn't this conflict with the !CONFIG_CPU stub in switch_to.h? switch_to.h did include asm/hwcap.h, but the !CONFIG_FPU stub +#define has_fpu false always shows later than +extern bool has fpu so actually no warning during compilation. > > It seems like we should only have this definition in one place to start > with. It does look a little bit weird. Should I send a v6 for this? > > Otherwise this looks fine to me: > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig > Thanks for all the feedback. Alan