[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200807181530.10044.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:30:09 +1000
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>,
Paul Jackson <pj@....com>,
Tigran Aivazian <tigran@...azian.fsnet.co.uk>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
Greg Banks <gnb@....com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andreas Schwab <schwab@...e.de>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] cpumask: Replace cpumask_of_cpu with cpumask_of_cpu_ptr
On Wednesday 16 July 2008 07:14:30 Mike Travis wrote:
> * This patch replaces the dangerous lvalue version of cpumask_of_cpu
> with new cpumask_of_cpu_ptr macros. These are patterned after the
> node_to_cpumask_ptr macros.
Hi Mike,
Should we just put cpumask_of_cpu_map[] in generic code and then have
cpumask_of_cpu() always return a cpumask_t pointer? These macros which
declare things which may be one of two types is a real penalty for code
readability.
Thanks,
Rusty.
--
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