lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    Patch in this message
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/11] ksm: trivial tidyups
    On Mon, 28 Jan 2013, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:58:11 -0800 (PST)
    > Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> wrote:
    >
    > > +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
    > > +#define NUMA(x) (x)
    > > +#define DO_NUMA(x) (x)
    >
    > Did we consider
    >
    > #define DO_NUMA do { (x) } while (0)
    >
    > ?

    It didn't occur to me at all. I like that it makes more sense of
    the DO_NUMA variant. Is it okay that, to work with the way I was
    using it, we need "(x);" in there rather than just "(x)"?

    >
    > That could avoid some nasty config-dependent compilation issues.
    >
    > > +#else
    > > +#define NUMA(x) (0)

    [PATCH] ksm: trivial tidyups fix

    Suggested by akpm: make DO_NUMA(x) do { (x); } while (0) more like the #else.

    Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
    ---

    mm/ksm.c | 2 +-
    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

    --- mmotm.org/mm/ksm.c 2013-01-27 09:55:45.000000000 -0800
    +++ mmotm/mm/ksm.c 2013-01-28 16:50:25.772026446 -0800
    @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@

    #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
    #define NUMA(x) (x)
    -#define DO_NUMA(x) (x)
    +#define DO_NUMA(x) do { (x); } while (0)
    #else
    #define NUMA(x) (0)
    #define DO_NUMA(x) do { } while (0)

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2013-01-29 03:21    [W:4.140 / U:0.108 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site