On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 16:24 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 13:05 -0700, Adam Litke wrote: > > > > +#define has_pt_op(vma, op) \ > > + ((vma)->pagetable_ops && (vma)->pagetable_ops->op) > > +#define pt_op(vma, call) \ > > + ((vma)->pagetable_ops->call) > > Can you get rid of these macros? I think they make it a wee bit harder > to read. My brain doesn't properly parse the foo(arg)(bar) syntax. > > + if (has_pt_op(vma, copy_vma)) > + return pt_op(vma, copy_vma)(dst_mm, src_mm, vma); > > + if (vma->pagetable_ops && vma->pagetable_ops->copy_vma) > + return vma->pagetable_ops->copy_vma(dst_mm, src_mm, vma); > > I guess it does lead to some longish lines. Does it start looking > really nasty?
Yeah, it starts to look pretty bad. Some of these calls are in code that is already indented several times. > If you're going to have them, it might just be best to put a single > unlikely() around the macro definitions themselves to keep anybody from > having to open-code it for any of the users. It should be pretty easy to wrap has_pt_op() with an unlikely(). Good suggestion. -- Adam Litke - (agl at us.ibm.com) IBM Linux Technology Center - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
