Michael Neuling <mi...@neuling.org> writes:
> On Mon, 2018-06-18 at 19:59 -0300, Breno Leitao wrote:
>> Currently msr_tm_active() is a wrapper around MSR_TM_ACTIVE() if
>> CONFIG_PPC_TRANSACTIONAL_MEM is set, or it is just a function that
>> returns false if CONFIG_PPC_TRANSACTIONAL_MEM is not set.
>>
>> This function is not necessary, since MSR_TM_ACTIVE() just do the same,
>> checking for the TS bits and does not require any TM facility.
>>
>> This patchset remove every instance of msr_tm_active() and replaced it
>> by MSR_TM_ACTIVE().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <lei...@debian.org>
>>
>
> Patch looks good... one minor nit below...
>
>>
>> - if (!msr_tm_active(regs->msr) &&
>> - !current->thread.load_fp && !loadvec(current->thread))
>> + if (!current->thread.load_fp && !loadvec(current->thread)) {
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_TRANSACTIONAL_MEM
>> + if (!MSR_TM_ACTIVE(regs->msr))
>> + return;
>
> Can you make a MSR_TM_ACTIVE() that returns false when
> !CONFIG_PPC_TRANSACTIONAL_MEM. Then you don't need this inline #ifdef.
Is that safe?
I see ~50 callers of MSR_TM_ACTIVE(), are they all inside #ifdef TM ?
cheers
