[PATCH v2 1/4] powerpc/tm: Remove msr_tm_active()

[Michael Ellerman]

Michael Neuling <mikey at 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 <leitao at 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