Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcu...@gmail.com> writes:
> 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).
why not
#ifndef pte_soft_dirty
#define pte_soft_dirty(pte) 0
#endif
and on x86
#define pte_soft_dirty pte_soft_dirty
-aneesh
--
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/
