On Mon, 28 Jan 2013, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:58:11 -0800 (PST)
> Hugh Dickins <hu...@google.com> wrote:
>
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> > +#define NUMA(x) (x)
> > +#define DO_NUMA(x) (x)
>
> Did we consider
>
> #define DO_NUMA do { (x) } while (0)
>
> ?
It didn't occur to me at all. I like that it makes more sense of
the DO_NUMA variant. Is it okay that, to work with the way I was
using it, we need "(x);" in there rather than just "(x)"?
>
> That could avoid some nasty config-dependent compilation issues.
>
> > +#else
> > +#define NUMA(x) (0)
[PATCH] ksm: trivial tidyups fix
Suggested by akpm: make DO_NUMA(x) do { (x); } while (0) more like the #else.
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hu...@google.com>
---
mm/ksm.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- mmotm.org/mm/ksm.c 2013-01-27 09:55:45.000000000 -0800
+++ mmotm/mm/ksm.c 2013-01-28 16:50:25.772026446 -0800
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@
#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
#define NUMA(x) (x)
-#define DO_NUMA(x) (x)
+#define DO_NUMA(x) do { (x); } while (0)
#else
#define NUMA(x) (0)
#define DO_NUMA(x) do { } while (0)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
