[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070729045951.55b2285b.pj@sgi.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 04:59:51 -0700
From: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mm-commits@...r.kernel.org,
lee.schermerhorn@...com, bob.picco@...com, clameter@....com
Subject: Re: +
numa-generic-management-of-nodemasks-for-various-purposes.patch added to
-mm tree
Lee Schermerhorn (via Andrew) wrote:
> +static inline void node_set_state(int node, enum node_states state)
> +{
> + __node_set(node, &node_states[state]);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void node_clear_state(int node, enum node_states state)
> +{
> + __node_clear(node, &node_states[state]);
> +}
Lee - would you get the same result (same compiled binary code) with
something like:
+static inline void node_set_state(int node, enum node_states state)
+{
+ node_set(node, node_states[state]);
+}
+
+static inline void node_clear_state(int node, enum node_states state)
+{
+ node_clear(node, node_states[state]);
+}
If so, then I're prefer the latter, as it doesn't depend on the strange
#define wrapping an inline implementation of node_set and node_clear.
In other words, the latter looks 'simpler'.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@....com> 1.925.600.0401
-
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