Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 3 Feb 2009 11:20:46 -0800 (PST) | From | Davide Libenzi <> | Subject | Re: [patch 2/6] epoll keyed wakeups v2 - introduce new *_poll() wakeup macros |
| |
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 12:04:23 -0800 Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org> wrote: > > > > > +#define wake_up_nested_poll(x, m, s) \ > > > +do { \ > > > + unsigned long flags; \ > > > + \ > > > + spin_lock_irqsave_nested(&(x)->lock, flags, (s)); \ > > > + wake_up_locked_poll(x, m); \ > > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&(x)->lock, flags); \ > > > +} while (0) > > > > I had to go and find the callsite to work out the type of `x' :( > > > > - this macro can be passed the address of any structure which has a > > `spinlock_t lock;' in it, which seems strange. > > > > - It references its first arg three times. > > > > Is there any reason why we can't implement this in C? > > I don't see any reason why these two couldn't be normal functions (I > just referenced wake_up_nested(), that was a macro in the first place).
Actually reading the comments helps :) It triggers an include-hell, if you make them inline. Since they're lockdep debug thingies, I think it's kinda wasted turn them into non-inline real functions, so they'd better remain macros IMO.
- Davide
| |