Re: [PATCH 03/12] mce-severity: cleanup severity table

[Ingo Molnar]

* Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > -	BITCLR(
> > -		MCI_STATUS_VAL,
> > -		NO, "Invalid"
> > +	MCESEV(
> > +		NO, "Invalid",
> > +		BITCLR(MCI_STATUS_VAL)
> >  		),
> > -	BITCLR(
> > -		MCI_STATUS_EN,
> > -		NO, "Not enabled"
> > +	MCESEV(
> > +		NO, "Not enabled",
> > +		BITCLR(MCI_STATUS_EN)
> >  		),
> > -	BITSET(
> > -		MCI_STATUS_PCC,
> > -		PANIC, "Processor context corrupt"
> > +	MCESEV(
> > +		PANIC, "Processor context corrupt",
> > +		BITSET(MCI_STATUS_PCC)
> >  		),
> 
> I'm still wondering whether using the gcc struct assignment syntax could
> make those much more readable instead of changing the macro inclusion:
> 
> 	{
> 		.sev	= MCE_PANIC_SEVERITY,
> 		.msg	= "Processor context corrupt",
> 		.mask	= MCI_STATUS_PCC,
> 		.result	= MCI_STATUS_PCC,
> 	},
> 	...

Hidetoshi's version was already an improvement over what we have 
currently (what we have now is largely unreadable), but your variant 
looks even more readable and isnt all that much longer either.

So, the case for macros is where the initialization can be compressed 
into a single *readable* line. If that cannot be done then the least 
obfuscated version is generally the better one.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/