Re: [openib-general] [PATCH] lockdep: don't pull in includes when lockdep disabled
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 08:33:19AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 09:26 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > Ingo, does the following look good to you? > > > > Do not pull in various includes through lockdep.h if lockdep is disabled. > > Hi, > > can you tell us what this fixes? Eg is there a specific problem? [raises hand] Zillions of warnings on m68k allmodconfig. And, yes, patch removes them. In file included from ... from ... include/linux/list.h: In function `__list_add_rcu': include/linux/list.h:89: warning: implicit declaration of function `smp_wmb' > I mean... we're adding ifdefs so there better be a real good reason for > them fixing something real would be such a reason ;-) ___ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH] lockdep: don't pull in includes when lockdep disabled
Quoting r. Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockdep: don't pull in includes when lockdep disabled > > On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 09:26 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > Ingo, does the following look good to you? > > > > Do not pull in various includes through lockdep.h if lockdep is disabled. > > Hi, > > can you tell us what this fixes? Eg is there a specific problem? Er ... it's a cosmetic change - there's no serious problem, it is just that even if I disable lockdep, linux/lockdep.h will pull in several headers even though they are not needed -> more useless work for compiler to do. > I mean... we're adding ifdefs Note this doesn't add ifdefs, just moves them around. > so there better be a real good reason for > them fixing something real would be such a reason ;-) Well, I don't expect this specific bit to speed compilation up in any measurable way, but unnecessary includes do have the tendency to accumulate and lead to slower builds ... Is that a reason? -- MST ___ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH] lockdep: don't pull in includes when lockdep disabled
On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 09:26 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > Ingo, does the following look good to you? > > Do not pull in various includes through lockdep.h if lockdep is disabled. Hi, can you tell us what this fixes? Eg is there a specific problem? I mean... we're adding ifdefs so there better be a real good reason for them fixing something real would be such a reason ;-) Greetings, Arjan van de Ven ___ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
[openib-general] [PATCH] lockdep: don't pull in includes when lockdep disabled
Ingo, does the following look good to you? Do not pull in various includes through lockdep.h if lockdep is disabled. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> diff --git a/include/linux/lockdep.h b/include/linux/lockdep.h index 316e0fb..39d50c4 100644 --- a/include/linux/lockdep.h +++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h @@ -8,13 +8,13 @@ #ifndef __LINUX_LOCKDEP_H #define __LINUX_LOCKDEP_H +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP + #include #include #include #include -#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP - /* * Lock-class usage-state bits: */ -- MST ___ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
