On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 07:55:20PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 06:03:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 05:52:04PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >> > for_each_something(foo)
> >> > if
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 06:03:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 05:52:04PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> > for_each_something(foo)
>> > if (foo->bla)
>> > call_bla(foo);
>> > else
>> >
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 06:03:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 05:52:04PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > for_each_something(foo)
> > if (foo->bla)
> > call_bla(foo);
> > else
> > call_default(foo);
> >
> > Totally contrived, but this comp
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 05:52:04PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> for_each_something(foo)
> if (foo->bla)
> call_bla(foo);
> else
> call_default(foo);
Note that the kernel coding style 'discourages' this style and would
like you to write:
for_each_so
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 6:03 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 05:52:04PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> for_each_something(foo)
>> if (foo->bla)
>> call_bla(foo);
>> else
>> call_default(foo);
>>
>> Totally contrived, but this complains. Li
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 05:52:04PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> for_each_something(foo)
> if (foo->bla)
> call_bla(foo);
> else
> call_default(foo);
>
> Totally contrived, but this complains. Liberally sprinkling {} also shuts
> up the compiler, but it's a
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 05:12:58PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 05:00:07PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:36:49AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> > >> #define for_each_node_wit
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 05:00:07PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:36:49AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >> #define for_each_node_with_cpus(node)\
> >> for_each_online_node(node)
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:36:49AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> Avoids complaints from gcc about ambiguous else clauses.
>
> Is that a new thing? I'm fairly sure I've never seen it do that,
>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter
>> Cc: Andrew
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:36:49AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Avoids complaints from gcc about ambiguous else clauses.
Is that a new thing? I'm fairly sure I've never seen it do that,
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter
> Cc: Andrew Morton
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra
> ---
> include/linux/topology.h |
Avoids complaints from gcc about ambiguous else clauses.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter
Cc: Andrew Morton
Cc: Peter Zijlstra
---
include/linux/topology.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/topology.h b/include/linux/topology.h
index cb0775e1ee4b..4f
11 matches
Mail list logo