[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0902031116500.23050@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 11:20:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.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 Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> I don't see any reason why these two couldn't be normal functions (I
> just referenced wake_up_nested(), that was a macro in the first place).
Actually reading the comments helps :) It triggers an include-hell, if you
make them inline. Since they're lockdep debug thingies, I think it's kinda
wasted turn them into non-inline real functions, so they'd better remain
macros IMO.
- Davide
--
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