On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 05:30:29PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 17:20:11 -0700 Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Seems like quite a few places depend on the macro disappearing its
> > > argument. I was concerned that it's going to be had to pick out whether
> > > !LOCKDEP builds should return true or false from LOCKDEP helpers, but
> > > perhaps relying on the linker errors even more is not such poor taste?
> > >
> > > Does the patch below look acceptable to you?
> >
> > The thing to check would be whether all compilers do sufficient
> > dead-code elimination (it used to be that they did not). One way to
> > get a quick sniff test of this would be to make sure that a dead-code
> > lockdep_is_held() is in common code, and then expose this patch to kbuild
> > test robot.
>
> I'm pretty sure it's in common code because kbuild bot complaints were
> the reason I gave up the first time around ;)
>
> I'll expose this to kbuild bot via my kernel.org tree in case it
> doesn't consider scissored patches and report back!
Sounds good, thank you!
Thanx, Paul
