[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1185831827.5492.112.camel@localhost>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:43:47 -0400
From: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>
To: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mm-commits@...r.kernel.org, bob.picco@...com, clameter@....com
Subject: Re: +
numa-generic-management-of-nodemasks-for-various-purposes.patch added to
-mm tree
On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 04:59 -0700, Paul Jackson wrote:
> 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'm OK with this, altho' I think Christoph was just following the lead
of the other node[s]_*() functions. Care to submit a patch when you
return from vacation?
Christoph: what do you think?
Lee
-
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