[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <47C3E3FF.BA47.005A.0@novell.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:03:43 -0700
From: "Gregory Haskins" <ghaskins@...ell.com>
To: "Pavel Machek" <pavel@....cz>
Cc: <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, <mingo@...e.hu>, <bill.huey@...il.com>,
<rostedt@...dmis.org>, <kevin@...man.org>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
<cminyard@...sta.com>, <dsingleton@...sta.com>,
<dwalker@...sta.com>, "Moiz Kohari" <MKohari@...ell.com>,
"Peter Morreale" <PMorreale@...ell.com>,
"Sven Dietrich" <SDietrich@...ell.com>, <dsaxena@...xity.net>,
<acme@...hat.com>, <ak@...e.de>, <gregkh@...e.de>,
<npiggin@...e.de>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [(RT RFC) PATCH v2 5/9] adaptive real-time lock support
>>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 5:03 PM, in message
<20080225220313.GG2659@....ucw.cz>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> wrote:
>> +static inline void
>> +prepare_adaptive_wait(struct rt_mutex *lock, struct adaptive_waiter
> *adaptive)
> ...
>> +#define prepare_adaptive_wait(lock, busy) {}
>
> This is evil. Use empty inline function instead (same for the other
> function, there you can maybe get away with it).
>
I went to implement your suggested change and I remembered why I did it this way: I wanted a macro so that the "struct adaptive_waiter" local variable will fall away without an #ifdef in the main body of code. So I have left this logic alone for now.
--
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