On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 03:23:44PM +0000, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > On 3/12/21 3:13 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 02:22:07PM +0000, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/mte.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/mte.h > >> index 9b557a457f24..8603c6636a7d 100644 > >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/mte.h > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/mte.h > >> @@ -90,5 +90,20 @@ static inline void mte_assign_mem_tag_range(void *addr, > >> size_t size) > >> > >> #endif /* CONFIG_ARM64_MTE */ > >> > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_KASAN_HW_TAGS > >> +/* Whether the MTE asynchronous mode is enabled. */ > >> +DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(mte_async_mode); > >> + > >> +static inline bool system_uses_mte_async_mode(void) > >> +{ > >> + return static_branch_unlikely(&mte_async_mode); > >> +} > >> +#else > >> +static inline bool system_uses_mte_async_mode(void) > >> +{ > >> + return false; > >> +} > >> +#endif /* CONFIG_KASAN_HW_TAGS */ > > > > You can write this with fewer lines: > > > > DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(mte_async_mode); > > > > static inline bool system_uses_mte_async_mode(void) > > { > > return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KASAN_HW_TAGS) && > > static_branch_unlikely(&mte_async_mode); > > } > > > > The compiler will ensure that mte_async_mode is not referred when > > !CONFIG_KASAN_HW_TAGS and therefore doesn't need to be defined. > > Yes, I agree, but I introduce "#ifdef CONFIG_KASAN_HW_TAGS" in the successive > patch anyway, according to me the overall code looks more uniform like this. > But > I do not have a strong opinion or preference on this.
Ah, yes, I didn't look at patch 6 again as it was already reviewed and I forgot the context. Leave it as it is then, my reviewed-by still stands. -- Catalin