On Tue, 2016-04-26 at 11:29 -0300, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> 2016-04-26 Lucas Stach <l.stach at pengutronix.de>:
> > Am Donnerstag, den 21.04.2016, 12:38 -0300 schrieb Gustavo Padovan:
> > > From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan at collabora.co.uk>
> > >
> > > This function had copies in 3 different files. Unify them in kernel.h.
> > >
> > > Cc: Joe Perches <joe at perches.com>
> > > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm at linux-foundation.org>
> > > Cc: David Airlie <airlied at linux.ie>
> > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at intel.com>
> > > Cc: Rob Clark <robdclark at gmail.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan at collabora.co.uk>
> > >
> > Though I normally prefer static inline functions, I see the benefits of
> > using the macro form here.
An inline could still work
static inline void __user *u64_to_user_ptr(u64 address)
{
return (void __user *)(uintptr_t)address;
}
if the macro was
#define u64_to_user_ptr(x) \
({ \
typecheck(u64, x); \
(u64_to_user_ptr)(x); \
})
the parenthesis around the u64_to_user_ptr
in the macro should prevent expansion.
