[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130122144024.8ded0f53.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 14:40:24 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Simon Jeons <simon.jeons@...il.com>,
Wanpeng Li <liwanp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] mm: numa: Handle side-effects in
count_vm_numa_events() for !CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING
On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:12:39 +0000
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> wrote:
> The current definitions for count_vm_numa_events() is wrong for
> !CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING as the following would miss the side-effect.
>
> count_vm_numa_events(NUMA_FOO, bar++);
Stupid macros.
> There are no such users of count_vm_numa_events() but it is a potential
> pitfall. This patch fixes it and converts count_vm_numa_event() so that
> the definitions look similar.
Confused. The patch doesn't alter count_vm_numa_event(). No matter.
> --- a/include/linux/vmstat.h
> +++ b/include/linux/vmstat.h
> @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ static inline void vm_events_fold_cpu(int cpu)
> #define count_vm_numa_events(x, y) count_vm_events(x, y)
> #else
> #define count_vm_numa_event(x) do {} while (0)
> -#define count_vm_numa_events(x, y) do {} while (0)
> +#define count_vm_numa_events(x, y) do { (void)(y); } while (0)
> #endif /* CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING */
>
> #define __count_zone_vm_events(item, zone, delta) \
--
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