* Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jun 2015 21:04:01 +0200
> Denys Vlasenko <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > This macro is small, has only four callsites, and one of them is slightly
> > different using a conditional parameter.
> >
> > A few saved lines aren't worth the resulting obfuscation.
>
> I'm curious, why? Did someone recommend this change? I don't see it as
> obfuscation at all.
So here are a few easy questions, I'm wondering how many minutes it takes for
you
to answer them correctly:
- What does the CLEAR_RREGS name stand for?
- What is this macro's purpose?
- In a single case CLEAR_RREGS takes a 'r9' argument:
arch/x86/ia32/ia32entry.S: CLEAR_RREGS
arch/x86/ia32/ia32entry.S: CLEAR_RREGS
arch/x86/ia32/ia32entry.S: CLEAR_RREGS r9
arch/x86/ia32/ia32entry.S: CLEAR_RREGS
arch/x86/ia32/ia32entry.S: CLEAR_RREGS
What is the 'r9' argument's purpose and why is activated in the place where
it's activated?
The CLEAR_RREGS macro has zero comments. If it takes more than a quick glance
to
determine all these three first-order questions from the source code, then it's
an
obvious code cleanliness fail which needs to be improved.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
