On Thursday, May 01, 2014 12:47:25 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 02:01:02 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > Encapsulate the large portion of cpuidle_idle_call inside another > > function so when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE=n, the code will be compiled out. > > Also that is benefitial for the clarity of the code as it removes > > a nested indentation level. > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]> > > Well, this conflicts with > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4071541/ > > which you haven't commented on and I still want cpuidle_select() to be able to > return negative values because of > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4089631/ > > (and I have one more patch on top of these two that requires this).
Moreover (along the lines of Nico said) after https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4071541/ we actually don't need the #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE in your patch, because cpuidle_select() for CONFIG_CPU_IDLE unset is a static inline returning a negative number and the compiler should optimize out the blocks that depend on it being non-negative. Thanks! -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
