> -----Original Message----- > From: ilen...@gmail.com [mailto:ilen...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Stefan > Hengelein > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 2:19 AM > To: Wu, Feng > Cc: Valentin Rothberg; Paul Bolle; Andreas Ruprecht; t...@linutronix.de; > x...@kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; ru...@rustcorp.com.au; > mi...@redhat.com > Subject: unnecessary #ifdefs > > Hi Feng Wu, > > your commits > > f6b3c72c23661e55 ("x86/irq: Define a global vector for VT-d > Posted-Interrupts") > 501b32653ebf49114c ("x86/irq: Show statistics information for > posted-interrupts") > > showed up in linux-next today (i.e. next-20150526). > > Both commits add "#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_KVM" blocks to either > arch/x86/kernel/irq.c or arch/x86/include/asm/irq.h > > However, HAVE_KVM is always enabled in x86, since the root option X86 > always selects HAVE_KVM. > > How is the policy here, are these blocks inserted in case the "select > HAVE_KVM" is removed from X86 someday or did you mean to use > CONFIG_KVM? >
In fact, some of the "#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_KVM" have been there for a while, it was introduced for a special IPI for posted-interrupts used for KVM. Now we need to add other similar IPI for posted-interrupts for KVM, so I just follow the existing infrastructure. You can refer to commit " d78f2664832f8d70e36422af9a10e44276dced48 ", where "#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_KVM" was original used. Thanks, Feng > > I detected the issue with undertaker-checkpatch [1, 2] running on a > bot in Erlangen [3] to make daily checks of commits in linux-next for > #ifdef related defects. > > Best Regards, > Stefan > > [1] https://undertaker.cs.fau.de > [2] http://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/2014/ocw/proposals/1863 > [3] https://cados.cs.fau.de N�����r��y����b�X��ǧv�^�){.n�+����{����zX����ܨ}���Ơz�&j:+v�������zZ+��+zf���h���~����i���z� �w���?�����&�)ߢf��^jǫy�m��@A�a��� 0��h���i
