>> >> Do you also want me to completely drop the COUNT macro? IMO it makes >> >> the CGROUP_<TAG>_COUNT consolidation much nicer. >> > >> > What's wrong with simply having start and end tags? >> >> Because you'd have to write (CGROUP_TAG_END - CGROUP_TAG_START) every >> time? It's a small addition and it makes referencing the range of a >> tagged section much easier. > > Wouldn't loops look more like > > for (subsys = CGROUP_TAG_START; subsys < CGROUP_TAG_END; subsys++)
Sorry, I meant for defining arrays. `state[CGROUP_TAG_END - CGROUP_TAG_START]` is just more annoying to type and read than `state[CGROUP_TAG_COUNT]`. > And even if not, just define a separate macro for the length. It's > not like we're gonna have a lot of tags. Do you mean like this? #define SUBSYS_TAG_COUNT(_tag) (CGROUP_ ## _tag ## _END - CGROUP_ ## _tag ## _START) That's fine I guess, I just wanted to match CGROUP_SUBSYS_COUNT in semantics, but I'll do that if you prefer it that way. -- Aleksa Sarai (cyphar) www.cyphar.com -- 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/
