[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081109134303.GA10654@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 13:43:03 +0000
From: Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
To: Nicolas Pitre <nico@....org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
paulus@...ba.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] clarify usage expectations for cnt32_to_63()
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 08:34:23AM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> Do you really have such instances where multiple call sites are needed?
> That sounds even more confusing to me than the current model. Better
> encapsulate the usage of this macro within some function which has a
> stronger meaning, such as sched_clock(), and call _that_ from multiple
> sites instead.
What if sched_clock() is inline and uses cnt32_to_63()? I think that's
where the problem lies. Better add a comment that it shouldn't be used
inside another inline function.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
--
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