[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090320234412.GK28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:44:12 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Christopher Li <sparse@...isli.org>,
linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org, Hannes Eder <hannes@...neseder.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Nasal demons in preprocessor use (Re: [PATCH] test-suite: new
preprocessor test case)
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 12:16:17AM +0100, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> (The solution you sketched is still quite an uglification of the
> original code, something we tried to minimize using the construct you
> saw.)
Frankly, I'd suggest expanding that sucker and being done with that.
However, more interesting question is whether you really need the
named field to be a struct. If not, something like
bitfields_start(name)
....
bitfields_end
would work just fine, without all that fun.
--
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