On 07/29/2013 06:14 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 06:08:55PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: >>> >>> - if (!pte_none(*pte)) >>> + ptfile = pgoff_to_pte(pgoff); >>> + >>> + if (!pte_none(*pte)) { >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY >>> + if (pte_present(*pte) && >>> + pte_soft_dirty(*pte)) >> >> I think there's no need in wrapping every such if () inside #ifdef >> CONFIG_..., >> since the pte_soft_dirty() routine itself would be 0 for non-soft-dirty case >> and compiler would optimize this code out. > > If only I'm not missing something obvious, this code compiles not only on x86, > CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY depends on x86 (otherwise I'll have to implement > pte_soft_dirty for all archs).
For non-x86 case there are stubs in include/asm-generic/pgtable.h that would act as if the CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY is off. Thanks, Pavel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/