@@ -1792,7 +1792,6 @@ static void cpu_util_update_eff(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css);
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_SYSCTL
-#ifdef CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK
#ifdef CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK_GROUP
static void uclamp_update_root_tg(void)
{
@@ -1898,7 +1897,6 @@ static int sysctl_sched_uclamp_handler(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
return result;
}
#endif
-#endif
static int uclamp_validate(struct task_struct *p,
const struct sched_attr *attr)
@@ -2065,7 +2063,7 @@ static void __init init_uclamp(void)
}
}
-#else /* CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK */
+#else /* !CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK */
static inline void uclamp_rq_inc(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p) { }
static inline void uclamp_rq_dec(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p) { }
static inline int uclamp_validate(struct task_struct *p,
@@ -10182,10 +10182,8 @@ static int idle_cpu_without(int cpu, struct task_struct *p)
* be computed and tested before calling idle_cpu_without().
*/
-#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
if (rq->ttwu_pending)
return 0;
-#endif
return 1;
}
when a ifdef is used in the below manner, second one could be considered as duplicate. ifdef DEFINE_A ...code block... ifdef DEFINE_A ...code block... endif ...code block... endif In the scheduler code, there are two places where above pattern can be observed. Hence second ifdef is a duplicate and not needed. Plus a minor comment update to reflect the else case. No functional change is intended here. It only aims to improve code readability. Signed-off-by: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.ibm.com> --- kernel/sched/core.c | 4 +--- kernel/sched/fair.c | 2 -- 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-) -- 2.39.3