On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:00:19 +1000 Nick Piggin wrote: > On Wednesday 24 October 2007 15:09, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > From: Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Can we expand this macro definition, or should I look for a way to > > fool^W teach kernel-doc about this? > > > > scripts/kernel-doc says: > > Error(linux-2.6.24-rc1//include/asm-x86/bitops_32.h:188): cannot understand > > prototype: 'test_and_set_bit_lock test_and_set_bit ' > > Actually, it probably looks a bit nicer like this anyway. If you grep > for it, then you can actually see the parameters... > > On third thoughts, an inline function might be the best thing to do, > and also avoid setting a bad example. What do you think?
That's probably best, yes. Would you do the honors? > > Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > --- > > include/asm-x86/bitops_32.h | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > --- linux-2.6.24-rc1.orig/include/asm-x86/bitops_32.h > > +++ linux-2.6.24-rc1/include/asm-x86/bitops_32.h > > @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ static inline int test_and_set_bit(int n > > * > > * This is the same as test_and_set_bit on x86 > > */ > > -#define test_and_set_bit_lock test_and_set_bit > > +#define test_and_set_bit_lock(nr, addr) test_and_set_bit(nr, addr) > > > > /** > > * __test_and_set_bit - Set a bit and return its old value > > --- --- ~Randy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/