On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 01:18:14PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On February 22, 2014 1:00:39 PM PST, Josh Triplett <j...@joshtriplett.org> > wrote: > >On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 09:49:36PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 11:57:10AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > >> > diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/cpu.c b/arch/x86/boot/cpu.c > >> > index 6ec6bb6..29207f6 100644 > >> > --- a/arch/x86/boot/cpu.c > >> > +++ b/arch/x86/boot/cpu.c > >> > @@ -16,7 +16,9 @@ > >> > */ > >> > > >> > #include "boot.h" > >> > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_FEATURE_NAMES > >> > #include "cpustr.h" > >> > +#endif > >> > >> You probably could get rid of this ifdef too by moving it into > >cpustr.h > >> after teaching arch/x86/boot/mkcpustr.c to issue it... > > > >That would require building and running mkcpustr, which doesn't happen > >when !CONFIG_X86_FEATURE_NAMES. (And it'd require adding ifdefs to > >mkcpustr instead, which seems counterproductive.) > > Didn't that change since v1?
No, even after removing the ifdefs around the build rules as you suggested (and v3's fixes for the resulting build issues, notably changing some -y's to -$(CONFIG_X86_FEATURE_NAMES)), the makefiles still manage to not build mkcpustr or cpustr.h, because nothing depends on it. I could change the build rules to generate an empty cpustr.h and avoid this ifdef, but that'd require an additional ifdef block in the Makefile. - Josh Triplett -- 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/
