[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <496DE6E4.1010209@novell.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 08:21:40 -0500
From: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, rostedt@...e.goodmis.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched: fix build error in kernel/sched_rt.c when RT_GROUP_SCHED
&& !SMP
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
>
>> On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 09:01 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>>> * Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> +#define dec_rt_group(rt_se, rt_rq) do { } while (0)
>>>>
>>> Please dont _ever_ introduce new CPP macros into core kernel code, and if
>>> you see existing once, please fix them to be proper C inline functions.
>>> (there's a few other new macros in your patchset)
>>>
>> Generally good advice, and certainly doable in this case. But in some
>> very rare occasions I've had to use CPP in order to avoid silly header
>> dependency hell -- I think we should add comments in such cases as to
>> why we use CPP.
>>
>
> yeah - that's why i qualified it with 'core kernel code', not 'headers'.
>
> (But even in the dependency spaghetti case the right solution is to clean
> up the header dependencies. It's just very hard in most cases due to most
> folks running on x86 and there being 20+ other architectures they cannot
> really test. So the dependency hell tends to grow not shrink. )
>
>
Hey guys,
Sorry, wasn't aware of that rule. Ill spin a v3 and send it out later
today.
-Greg
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (258 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists