On Thu, 21 Aug 2014, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > > +#define this_cpu_cpumask_var_t_ptr(x) this_cpu_ptr(&x) > > Urgh, this is nasty but yeah I can't think of any other way around it > either. :( > > Do we need the "_t" in the name tho? Maybe we can shorten the name to > this_cpumask_var_ptr(x)? Also, wouldn't it be better to define it as > a static inline function so that the input type is explicit?
Its a pretty simple function (actually more a name substituion) so I did not think it worth creating an inline function. _t is there because I wanted to include the full "ugly" name of the variable to make it similarly ugly. It is needed to make the clear distinction to "struct cpumask *" which does not have these issues. -- 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/
