* Alexander Gordeev <agord...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 01:25:24PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > > @@ -584,8 +586,12 @@ int __irq_alloc_descs(int irq, unsigned int
> > > > > from, unsigned int cnt, int node,
> > > > > #define irq_alloc_desc_from(from, node) \
> > > > > irq_alloc_descs(-1, from, 1, node)
> > > > >
> > > > > +#define irq_alloc_descs_from(from, cnt, node) \
> > > > > + irq_alloc_descs(-1, from, cnt, node)
> > > > > +
> > > >
> > > > Please use inlines instead of macros. Might transform the one
> > > > above it as well in the process.
> > >
> > > You mean here do not introduce irq_alloc_descs_from, but rather use
> > > irq_alloc_descs() directly?
> >
> > My suggestion is to add irq_alloc_descs_from() as a (very
> > simple) inline function and change irq_alloc_desc_from() to be
> > an inline function as well.
>
> These defines were added on purpose with commit ec53cf2 ("irq:
> don't put module.h into irq.h for tracking irqgen modules.") -
> the relevant hunk is below. I suppose we do not want to revert
> it?
Sigh - that commit is really making a step backwards, but indeed
you are probably right that reintroducing the inlines would
create header dependency problems - which should be addressed in
another patch.
So I concur with your original approach that added a macro.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
