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!
