On Jan 20, 2008 5:24 PM, Johannes Weiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> "Bert Wesarg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Jan 20, 2008 12:25 PM, Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Jan 20 2008 20:48, Rusty Russell wrote:
> >> >+ */
> >> >+#define kthread_create(threadfn, data, namefmt...) ({ \
> >> >+ int (*_threadfn)(typeof(data)) = (threadfn); \
> >> >+ __kthread_create((void *)_threadfn, (data), namefmt); \
> >> >+})
> >>
> >> If you have namefmt... you need that varagrs cpp trick. IIRC:
> >>
> >> __kthread_create((void *)_threadfn, (data), namefmt, __VA_ARGS__);
> > almost
> >
> > either:
> >
> > #define kthread_create(threadfn, data, ...) ({ \
> > __kthread_create((void *)_threadfn, (data), __VA_ARGS__);
> >
>
> No. This is bad because it gives the impression that it takes only two
> essential arguments which is not the case.
Right, I just forget to mention this in a comment.
>
> > or:
> >
> > #define kthread_create(threadfn, data, namefmt, ...) ({ \
> > __kthread_create((void *)_threadfn, (data), namefmt, ##__VA_ARGS__);
> >
>
> This is better. I prefer naming the rest args instead of using __VA_ARGS__:
>
> #define kthread_create(threadfn, data, namefmt, fmtargs...) ({ \
> ... \
> __kthread_create((void *)_threadfn, (data), namefmt, ## fmtargs) \
> })
>
> but I think that is just a matter of taste.
No, it is a matter of conforming to C99 or to GNU extensions.
Bert
>
> Hannes
>
--
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/
