Re: [PATCH RESEND] spin_lock_*(): Always evaluate second argument

2014-08-06 Thread Bart Van Assche
On 07/23/14 01:16, David Rientjes wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Andrew Morton wrote: >>> Evaluating a macro argument only if certain configuration options >>> have been selected is confusing and error-prone. Hence always >>> evaluate the second argument of spin_lock_nested() and >>> spin_lock_nest_

Re: [PATCH RESEND] spin_lock_*(): Always evaluate second argument

2014-07-22 Thread David Rientjes
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Evaluating a macro argument only if certain configuration options > > have been selected is confusing and error-prone. Hence always > > evaluate the second argument of spin_lock_nested() and > > spin_lock_nest_lock(). > > > > An intentional side effec

Re: [PATCH RESEND] spin_lock_*(): Always evaluate second argument

2014-07-22 Thread Andrew Morton
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:17:45 +0200 Bart Van Assche wrote: > Evaluating a macro argument only if certain configuration options > have been selected is confusing and error-prone. Hence always > evaluate the second argument of spin_lock_nested() and > spin_lock_nest_lock(). > > An intentional side

[PATCH RESEND] spin_lock_*(): Always evaluate second argument

2014-07-22 Thread Bart Van Assche
Evaluating a macro argument only if certain configuration options have been selected is confusing and error-prone. Hence always evaluate the second argument of spin_lock_nested() and spin_lock_nest_lock(). An intentional side effect of this patch is that it avoids that the following warning is rep