On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 04:00:27PM +0000, Andrew Murray wrote:
> A common pattern found in header files is a function declaration dependent
> on a CONFIG_ option being enabled, followed by an empty function for when
> that option isn't enabled. This boilerplate code can often take up a lot
> of space and impact code readability.
>
> This series introduces a STUB_UNLESS macro that simplifies header files as
> follows:
>
> STUB_UNLESS(CONFIG_FOO, [body], prototype)
Can you explain the desire to make the second argument optional,
rather than having the mandatory arguments first and the optional body
last? It will mean more lines at each site, but I don't think that's
a bad thing:
STUB_UNLESS(CONFIG_HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT,
void hw_breakpoint_thread_switch(struct task_struct *next));
STUB_UNLESS(CONFIG_CPU_FREQ,
struct cpufreq_policy *cpufreq_cpu_get_raw(unsigned int cpu), return NULL);
or:
STUB_UNLESS(CONFIG_CPU_FREQ,
struct cpufreq_policy *cpufreq_cpu_get_raw(unsigned int cpu),
return NULL);
Seems to be more readable in terms of the flow.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up
