Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:44:23 -0800 (PST) | From | Hugh Dickins <> | Subject | Re: [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)
| |