[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.55.0807230053460.31850@cliff.in.clinika.pl>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 01:10:54 +0100 (BST)
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>
To: Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: PIC, L-APIC and I/O APIC debug information
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> It's not even remotely C-like, which will cause confusion
> for anyone or anything trying to read and understand the code.
Not being C-like sounds like an advantage as the reader would be forced
to check what it really means, but I can see what you mean, and the fact
we have got worse constructs elsewhere does not look like a terribly good
argument either.
> Something like the following looks saner to me, would it work for you?
>
> #ifdef debug
> #define apicdebug /* empty */
> #define __apicinit /* empty */
> #else
> #define apicdebug static
> #define __apicinit __init
> #endif
> ...
> apicdebug void __apicinit print_IO_APIC(void)
> { .. }
Hmm, suddenly out of a single line, quite a lot of stuff has emerged. I
am not convinced and I am now thinking of something else instead.
However these debugging facilities are not absolutely necessary for the
essential functionality of the patch, so I will simply remove them for
reconsideration and send a regenerated patch containing the rest only.
Ingo, please drop this one from anywhere you may have it -- I will send a
replacement shortly.
Maciej
--
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