[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200804051542.44717.david-b@pacbell.net>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 15:42:44 -0700
From: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To: Ben Nizette <bn@...sdigital.com>,
Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>
Cc: Bryan Wu <cooloney@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] [GPIO]: new arch-independent simple-gpio driver
On Wednesday 26 March 2008, Ben Nizette wrote:
> > +#define pr_devinit(fmt, args...) ({ static const __devinitdata char __fmt[] = fmt; printk(__fmt, ## args); })
> > +#define pr_init(fmt, args...) ({ static const __initdata char __fmt[] = fmt; printk(__fmt, ## args); })
>
> Should your pr_*init macros be accepted somewhere higher up the tree?
> Either that or dropped, it doesn't seem right wedging them in here.
> Sure it might cost you a few hundred bytes of RAM but would be nice to
> keep it all consistent across the kernel.
Me, I'm all in favor of getting rid of structural code bloat.
A few hundred bytes of such stuff shaved out a dozen drivers
on a given platforms would be almost free page saved! :)
So I'd be interested in seeing those get submitted ... but as
inline functions, not fancy macros. (Once they're submitted,
then let the flamage begin ... much less than kernel I18N!)
- Dave
--
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