>>> On 08.05.15 at 10:25, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
> On 08/05/15 07:42, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> @@ -30,29 +29,28 @@ build_write_atomic(write_u64_atomic, "q"
>>
>> void __bad_atomic_size(void);
>>
>> -#define read_atomic(p) ({ \
>> - unsigned long x_; \
>> - switch ( sizeof(*(p)) ) { \
>> - case 1: x_ = read_u8_atomic((uint8_t *)(p)); break; \
>> - case 2: x_ = read_u16_atomic((uint16_t *)(p)); break; \
>> - case 4: x_ = read_u32_atomic((uint32_t *)(p)); break; \
>> - case 8: x_ = read_u64_atomic((uint64_t *)(p)); break; \
>> - default: x_ = 0; __bad_atomic_size(); break; \
>> - } \
>> - (typeof(*(p)))x_; \
>> +#define read_atomic(p) ({ \
>> + unsigned long x_; \
>> + switch ( sizeof(*(p)) ) { \
>> + case 1: x_ = read_u8_atomic((uint8_t *)(p)); break; \
>> + case 2: x_ = read_u16_atomic((uint16_t *)(p)); break; \
>> + case 4: x_ = read_u32_atomic((uint32_t *)(p)); break; \
>> + case 8: x_ = read_u64_atomic((uint64_t *)(p)); break; \
>> + default: x_ = 0; __bad_atomic_size(); break; \
>> + } \
>> + (typeof(*(p)))x_; \
>> })
>
> I cant spot a change in read_atomic(), other than the alignment of the
> \'s. I just want to double check that I haven't missed something.
That's correct - I just wanted them to align with the write_atomic()
ones again without needlessly padding the now shorter lines there.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
