Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 6 Apr 2009 18:24:10 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: intel-iommu: Add for_each_iommu() and for_each_active_iommu() macros |
| |
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 18:19:06 -0700 David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 18:09 -0700, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > I'm unconvinced by the fix -- can we find a way to fix the if() macro so > > that normal (if fugly) C code like this doesn't doesn't need this kind > > of workaround? > > Something like this perhaps? I'd reformat it but dinner calls... > > diff --git a/include/linux/compiler.h b/include/linux/compiler.h > index 6faa7e5..1da2e72 100644 > --- a/include/linux/compiler.h > +++ b/include/linux/compiler.h > @@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ void ftrace_likely_update(struct ftrace_branch_data *f, int val, int expect); > * "Define 'is'", Bill Clinton > * "Define 'if'", Steven Rostedt > */ > -#define if(cond) if (__builtin_constant_p((cond)) ? !!(cond) : \ > +#define if(cond, ...) if (__builtin_constant_p((cond, ## __VA_ARGS__)) ? !!(cond, ## __VA_ARGS__) : \ > ({ \ > int ______r; \ > static struct ftrace_branch_data \ > @@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ void ftrace_likely_update(struct ftrace_branch_data *f, int val, int expect); > .file = __FILE__, \ > .line = __LINE__, \ > }; \ > - ______r = !!(cond); \ > + ______r = !!(cond, ## __VA_ARGS__); \ > ______f.miss_hit[______r]++; \ > ______r; \ > }))
That would be better. If it works, please send something Linuswards?
| |