[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87mut2pmqf.fsf@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 08:41:28 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] x86/cpu: Introduce INTEL_CPU_FAM*_NODATA() helper macros
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> writes:
> +
> +#define INTEL_CPU_FAM_ANY_NODATA(_family, _model) \
> + INTEL_CPU_FAM_ANY(_family, _model, NULL)
> +
> +#define INTEL_CPU_FAM6_NODATA(_model) \
> + INTEL_CPU_FAM_ANY_NODATA(6, INTEL_FAM6_##_model)
_NODATA is actually longer than passing NULL ?
Seems unnecessary
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists