On 04/05/2013 09:21 AM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> Hi, Sebastian
Hi Lai,
> The patch hurts readability.
> The original code are simple enough, merging them as one macro
> gives us no benefit.
Except when you need to adjust the macro and you have to touch both of
them instead just one. But I don't ha
On 03/19/2013 10:16 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> DEFINE_SRCU() and DEFINE_STATIC_SRCU() does the same thing except for
> the "static" attribute. This patch moves the common pieces into
> _DEFINE_SRCU() which is used by the the former macros either adding the
> static attribute or not.
>
On 03/19/2013 05:22 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>> +#define DEFINE_SRCU(name) _DEFINE_SRCU(name, )
>> +#define DEFINE_STATIC_SRCU(name)_DEFINE_SRCU(name, static)
>
> I think the use of an empty argument, even in
> a macro, unsightly.
__wait_event_lock_irq() => __wait_event_lock_irq() is
On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 15:16 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> DEFINE_SRCU() and DEFINE_STATIC_SRCU() does the same thing except for
> the "static" attribute. This patch moves the common pieces into
> _DEFINE_SRCU() which is used by the the former macros either adding the
> static attribute
DEFINE_SRCU() and DEFINE_STATIC_SRCU() does the same thing except for
the "static" attribute. This patch moves the common pieces into
_DEFINE_SRCU() which is used by the the former macros either adding the
static attribute or not.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
---
include/linux/srcu.h
5 matches
Mail list logo