Re: percpu: Define this_cpu_cpumask_var_t_ptr

[Christoph Lameter]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014, Tejun Heo wrote:

> >
> > +#define this_cpu_cpumask_var_t_ptr(x) this_cpu_ptr(&x)
>
> Urgh, this is nasty but yeah I can't think of any other way around it
> either. :(
>
> Do we need the "_t" in the name tho?  Maybe we can shorten the name to
> this_cpumask_var_ptr(x)?  Also, wouldn't it be better to define it as
> a static inline function so that the input type is explicit?

Its a pretty simple function (actually more a name substituion) so I
did not think it worth creating an inline function.

_t is there because I wanted to include the full "ugly" name of the
variable to make it similarly ugly. It is needed to make the clear
distinction to "struct cpumask *" which does not have these issues.


--
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/