Zefan Li wrote: > Those macros make the code easier to read, and emacs and cscope can also > understand them.
I'm using legacy LXR which cannot understand them. But > I'd vote for this: > > TASK_PFA_TEST(NO_NEW_PRIVS, no_new_privs) > TASK_PFA_SET(NO_NEW_PRIVS, no_new_privs) > > TASK_PFA_TEST(SPREAD_PAGE, spread_page) > TASK_PFA_SET(SPREAD_PAGE, spread_page) > TASK_PFA_CLEAR(SPREAD_PAGE, spread_page) > > TASK_PFA_TEST(SPREAD_SLAB, spread_slab) > TASK_PFA_SET(SPREAD_SLAB, spread_slab) > TASK_PFA_CLEAR(SPREAD_SLAB, spread_slab) > > over this: you can go ahead. This difference is not a stopper. Tejun Heo wrote: > All the patches look good to me. I can't say I'm a big fan of > function defining macros but I don't have prettier alternatives > either. Once Peter/Ingo acks the patches, I'll route them through > cgroup/for-3.17-fixes. Peter and Ingo, are these patches OK for you? -- 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/
