[PATCH v2 4/7] mm/x86: Drop two unnecessary pud_leaf() definitions
Peter Xu
peterx at redhat.com
Tue Mar 5 14:25:08 AEDT 2024
On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 09:03:34AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 04:42:55PM +0800, peterx at redhat.com wrote:
> > From: Peter Xu <peterx at redhat.com>
> >
> > pud_leaf() has a fallback macro defined in include/linux/pgtable.h already.
> > Drop the extra two for x86.
> >
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix.de>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo at redhat.com>
> > Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp at alien8.de>
> > Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen at linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: x86 at kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx at redhat.com>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h | 1 -
> > include/asm-generic/pgtable-nopmd.h | 1 -
> > 2 files changed, 2 deletions(-)
>
> Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at nvidia.com>
>
> > @@ -31,7 +31,6 @@ static inline int pud_none(pud_t pud) { return 0; }
> > static inline int pud_bad(pud_t pud) { return 0; }
> > static inline int pud_present(pud_t pud) { return 1; }
> > static inline int pud_user(pud_t pud) { return 0; }
> > -static inline int pud_leaf(pud_t pud) { return 0; }
>
> It would be nice to have a final patch making the signatures
> consistent on all the arch inlines, it should return bool not int.
Makes sense, will do, thanks.
--
Peter Xu
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list