Re: [PATCH 3/6] mm: numa: Handle side-effects incount_vm_numa_events() for !CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:12:39 +0000
Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> The current definitions for count_vm_numa_events() is wrong for
> !CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING as the following would miss the side-effect.
> 
> 	count_vm_numa_events(NUMA_FOO, bar++);

Stupid macros.

> There are no such users of count_vm_numa_events() but it is a potential
> pitfall. This patch fixes it and converts count_vm_numa_event() so that
> the definitions look similar.

Confused.  The patch doesn't alter count_vm_numa_event().  No matter.

> --- a/include/linux/vmstat.h
> +++ b/include/linux/vmstat.h
> @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ static inline void vm_events_fold_cpu(int cpu)
>  #define count_vm_numa_events(x, y) count_vm_events(x, y)
>  #else
>  #define count_vm_numa_event(x) do {} while (0)
> -#define count_vm_numa_events(x, y) do {} while (0)
> +#define count_vm_numa_events(x, y) do { (void)(y); } while (0)
>  #endif /* CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING */
>  
>  #define __count_zone_vm_events(item, zone, delta) \

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/