[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <adatzzzovcs.fsf@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:16:35 -0800
From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To: Ben Collins <ben.collins@...ntu.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.20-rc1] ib_verbs: Use explicit if-else statements to avoid errors with do-while macros
I see Linus already took this, which is fine... blame me for merging
this without fixing my cross-compile testbed.
Anyway:
> static inline int ib_dma_mapping_error(struct ib_device *dev, u64 dma_addr)
> {
> - return dev->dma_ops ?
> - dev->dma_ops->mapping_error(dev, dma_addr) :
> - dma_mapping_error(dma_addr);
> + if (dev->dma_ops)
> + return dev->dma_ops->mapping_error(dev, dma_addr);
> + return dma_mapping_error(dma_addr);
This stuff wasn't needed, was it? It's only the wrappers around void
functions that can't use ?: I would think... surely any trivial macro
replacement for a dma API function that returns a value must evaluate
to something like (0) that is safe to use in this context.
- R.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists