Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:af89:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id iu9csp1151104pxb; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 10:57:10 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzC7Cx4fFnirpgqHcZAZQfJWi3YgUMNXPyErVdZzItptnzPDZ3fjs5SKGjoQhk9OfSHfqQP X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:3b48:: with SMTP id ot8mr2048099pjb.95.1642791430020; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 10:57:10 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1642791430; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=w2eT+XrqTd17lgHG22Z6G33gmlBfDiFKengoGAHtE8W7/qzGgtpB3YVTYIuRuSAsda 4BDCQug2tQsmJkCTTmgF2WvGX4SKdnYo4R/woW1Ny7ULNzf7ZVAhARNhwq7p4m3RzzO5 yMzOeHoBCNOZmZJnn73LBx0g9hQeifqBIBF9kKOvsOzerBc4YgrBgElWYFBLhuA3+6+D 29AXgnsKyqIPF6daoL5kIJiKVgQcArX2tpTek6YOjRPal04imZ4KLU0aSZoiDIU5QG2i Je1bqycID6BE5Avtmpv6WXlrKbG08fuWuNZRs7/cFPu4SsAYKc372xllNbaZdUDz16GN aWHQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :dkim-signature; bh=q0Jq/iGEAUJBFkaTrvUcXumSON7O+wGuH4/+IOrgIh0=; b=vGUFa1CPBnbyNRL8j2+kMCtZbh+IeXah4FL9Fsvxp+eplLvb8o5yTlw5gUBkcK1jZ1 oCdcTWNbDaIfoSGWY3fNzqWiQ5na1gfdRUsE35aPL167dWjyRkUGEVFcxHIB64LTCplE aeFxLj1zzuHT17hDQyiHy+V/8dC6MzTW8qLuk7tHKCALoj8vfDhDyP3M5hfS0y4gv1gI FQzXOkolaxH3w8xCiVk80LJWLeon178uCbk7pGXdWVGwCAhGQmqmu+PYiQDJPJjqZuuT +7e4FEU/3aJE57OyJ8dFYC5xeMt8C7sPDxK5eC+Uw3BAedaKKHvBEwAKMbV8BrTQ9wWJ Wk8Q== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=DRRTP0hr; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=redhat.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id s6si751656plg.242.2022.01.21.10.56.57; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 10:57:10 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=DRRTP0hr; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=redhat.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1352067AbiASIJR (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 19 Jan 2022 03:09:17 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.129.124]:54254 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233338AbiASIJQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jan 2022 03:09:16 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1642579756; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=q0Jq/iGEAUJBFkaTrvUcXumSON7O+wGuH4/+IOrgIh0=; b=DRRTP0hrHmq1GvQPymAF5D9VqgjLFTrRFMs7juHQlSATLKknMd5li6r/i1LaI6mMxbbpLO K3A8xXLcPifrxR9C+DOB2AgT8hOAthbw16pbYiPtMGse+6X9N1RK01bdWwP2h4GMdIsUhb iVqojqi0EAkoNLx1sJt3BdU0zXiAaeA= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-395-TgfGWhqJOGu-EvyU0rV6uw-1; Wed, 19 Jan 2022 03:09:12 -0500 X-MC-Unique: TgfGWhqJOGu-EvyU0rV6uw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8A651006AA4; Wed, 19 Jan 2022 08:09:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (ovpn-12-206.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.12.206]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06F94607CB; Wed, 19 Jan 2022 08:09:01 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2022 16:08:59 +0800 From: Baoquan He To: Jisheng Zhang Cc: Russell King , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Paul Walmsley , Palmer Dabbelt , Albert Ou , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, Eric Biederman , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, Alexandre ghiti Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] kexec: use IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE) instead of #ifdef Message-ID: <20220119080859.GB4977@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> References: <20211206160514.2000-1-jszhang@kernel.org> <20220116133847.GE2388@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/18/22 at 10:13pm, Jisheng Zhang wrote: > On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 09:38:47PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: > > Hi Jisheng, > > Hi Baoquan, > > > > > On 12/07/21 at 12:05am, Jisheng Zhang wrote: > > > Replace the conditional compilation using "#ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE" > > > by a check for "IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE)", to simplify the code > > > and increase compile coverage. > > > > I go through this patchset, You mention the benefits it brings are > > 1) simplity the code; > > 2) increase compile coverage; > > > > For benefit 1), it mainly removes the dummy function in x86, arm and > > arm64, right? > > Another benefit: remove those #ifdef #else #endif usage. Recently, I > fixed a bug due to lots of "#ifdefs": > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-riscv/2021-December/010607.html Glad to know the fix. While, sometime the ifdeffery is necessary. I am sorry about the one in riscv and you have fixed, it's truly a bug . But, the increasing compile coverage at below you tried to make, it may cause issue. Please see below my comment. > > > > > For benefit 2), increasing compile coverage, could you tell more how it > > achieves and why it matters? What if people disables CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE in > > purpose? Please forgive my poor compiling knowledge. > > Just my humble opinion, let's compare the code:: > > #ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE > > code block A; > > #endif > > If KEXEC_CORE is disabled, code block A won't be compiled at all, the > preprocessor will remove code block A; > > If we convert the code to: > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE)) { > code block A; > } > > Even if KEXEC_CORE is disabled, code block A is still compiled. This is what I am worried about. Before, if CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE is unset, those relevant codes are not compiled in. I can't see what benefit is brought in if compiled in the unneeded code block. Do I miss anything?