On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> Very interesting patch! I did not expect we could mix local atomic ops
> with per CPU offsets in an atomic manner.. brilliant :)
>
> Some nitpicking follows...
Well this is a draft so I was not that thorough. The beast is getting too
big. It would be good if I could get the first patches merged that just
deal with the two allocators and then gradually work the rest.
> I think you could use extra () around old, new etc.. ?
Right.
> Same here.
>
> > + (x); \
>
> () seems unneeded here, since x is local.
But (x) is returned to the "caller" of the macro so it should be specially
marged.
> > + * In that case we can simply disable preemption which
> > + * may be free if the kernel is compiled without preemption.
> > + */
> > +
> > +#define _CPU_READ(addr) \
> > +({ \
> > + (__CPU_READ(addr)); \
> > +})
>
> ({ }) seems to be unneeded here.
Hmmm.... I wanted a consistent style.
-
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/
