* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Make the generic version of ptep_set_wrprotect a macro. This is good for
> code uniformity, and fixes the build for architectures which include pgtable.h
> through headers into assembly code, but do not define a ptep_set_wrprotect
> function.
This one is unrelated to other descriptor related changes. Why is it
included in this series?
> Signed-off-by: Zachary Amsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Index: linux-2.6.13/include/asm-generic/pgtable.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.13.orig/include/asm-generic/pgtable.h 2005-08-12
> 12:12:55.000000000 -0700
> +++ linux-2.6.13/include/asm-generic/pgtable.h 2005-08-15
> 13:54:42.000000000 -0700
> @@ -313,11 +313,12 @@
> #endif
>
> #ifndef __HAVE_ARCH_PTEP_SET_WRPROTECT
> -static inline void ptep_set_wrprotect(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long
> address, pte_t *ptep)
> -{
> - pte_t old_pte = *ptep;
> - set_pte_at(mm, address, ptep, pte_wrprotect(old_pte));
> -}
> +#define ptep_set_wrprotect(__mm, __address, __ptep) \
> +({ \
> + pte_t __old_pte = *(__ptep); \
> + set_pte_at((__mm), (__address), (__ptep), \
> + pte_wrprotect(__old_pte)); \
> +})
> #endif
I'm not sure I agree with this approach (although I understand the
motivation). This should at least be a do {} while(0) type macro,
since it's not returning a value.
thanks,
-chris
-
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/
