Re: [patch 2/6] epoll keyed wakeups v2 - introduce new *_poll()wakeup macros

[Davide Libenzi]

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Davide Libenzi wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 12:04:23 -0800 Davide Libenzi <davidel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > +#define wake_up_nested_poll(x, m, s)					\
> > > +do {									\
> > > +	unsigned long flags;						\
> > > +									\
> > > +	spin_lock_irqsave_nested(&(x)->lock, flags, (s));		\
> > > +	wake_up_locked_poll(x, m);					\
> > > +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&(x)->lock, flags);			\
> > > +} while (0)
> > 
> > I had to go and find the callsite to work out the type of `x' :(
> > 
> > - this macro can be passed the address of any structure which has a
> >   `spinlock_t lock;' in it, which seems strange.
> > 
> > - It references its first arg three times.
> > 
> > Is there any reason why we can't implement this in C?  
> 
> I don't see any reason why these two couldn't be normal functions (I 
> just referenced wake_up_nested(), that was a macro in the first place). 

Actually reading the comments helps :) It triggers an include-hell, if you 
make them inline. Since they're lockdep debug thingies, I think it's kinda 
wasted turn them into non-inline real functions, so they'd better remain 
macros IMO.



- Davide


--
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/