* Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com> wrote:
> With some minimal CPP, it can be a lot more manageable:
>
> ----
> #define INSTR_ATOMIC_XCHG(order) \
> static __always_inline int atomic_xchg##order(atomic_t *v, int i) \
> { \
> kasan_check_write(v, sizeof(*v)); \
> arch_atomic_xchg##order(v, i); \
> }
>
> #define INSTR_ATOMIC_XCHG()
>
> #ifdef arch_atomic_xchg_relaxed
> INSTR_ATOMIC_XCHG(_relaxed)
> #define atomic_xchg_relaxed atomic_xchg_relaxed
> #endif
>
> #ifdef arch_atomic_xchg_acquire
> INSTR_ATOMIC_XCHG(_acquire)
> #define atomic_xchg_acquire atomic_xchg_acquire
> #endif
>
> #ifdef arch_atomic_xchg_relaxed
> INSTR_ATOMIC_XCHG(_relaxed)
> #define atomic_xchg_relaxed atomic_xchg_relaxed
> #endif
Yeah, small detail: the third one wants to be _release, right?
> Is there any objection to some light CPP usage as above for adding the
> {relaxed,acquire,release} variants?
No objection from me to that way of writing it, this still looks very readable,
and probably more readable than the verbose variants. It's similar in style to
linux/atomic.h which has a good balance of C versus CPP.
What I objected to was the deep nested code generation approach in the original
patch.
CPP is fine in many circumstances, but there's a level of (ab-)use where it
becomes counterproductive.
Thanks,
Ingo
