Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] PPC/PPC64: Introduce CPU_HAS_FEATURE() macro | From | Pekka Enberg <> | Date | Sat, 05 Feb 2005 09:48:19 +0200 |
| |
On Fri, 2005-02-04 at 11:20 -0600, Olof Johansson wrote: > * cpu-has-feature(cpu-feature-foo) v cpu-has-feature(foo): I picked the > latter for readability. > * Renaming CPU_FTR_<x> -> CPU_<x> makes it less obvious that > it's actually a cpu feature it's describing (i.e. CPU_ALTIVEC vs > CPU_FTR_ALTIVEC). > * Renaming would clobber the namespace, CPU_* definitions are used in > other places in the tree. > * Can't make it an inline and still use the preprocessor concatenation.
Seriously, if readability is your argument, macro magic is not the answer. Ok, we can't clobber the CPU_ definitions, so pick another prefix.
If you want readability, please consider using named enums:
enum cpu_feature { CF_ALTIVEC = /* ... */ };
static inline int cpu_has_feature(enum cpu_feature cf) { }
Pekka
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |