[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090203001401.cc960d4e.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 00:14:01 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/6] epoll keyed wakeups v2 - introduce new *_poll()
wakeup macros
On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 12:04:23 -0800 Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org> wrote:
> +#define wake_up_nested_poll(x, m, s) \
> +do { \
> + unsigned long flags; \
> + \
> + spin_lock_irqsave_nested(&(x)->lock, flags, (s)); \
> + wake_up_locked_poll(x, m); \
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&(x)->lock, flags); \
> +} while (0)
I had to go and find the callsite to work out the type of `x' :(
- this macro can be passed the address of any structure which has a
`spinlock_t lock;' in it, which seems strange.
- It references its first arg three times.
Is there any reason why we can't implement this in C?
--
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