Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261203AbTI3IAU (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Sep 2003 04:00:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261205AbTI3IAU (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Sep 2003 04:00:20 -0400 Received: from TYO202.gate.nec.co.jp ([210.143.35.52]:34502 "EHLO TYO202.gate.nec.co.jp") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261203AbTI3IAS (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Sep 2003 04:00:18 -0400 To: Muli Ben-Yehuda Cc: Jamie Lokier , Andrew Morton , Linux-Kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH] document optimizing macro for translating PROT_ to VM_ bits References: <20030929090629.GF29313@actcom.co.il> <20030929153437.GB21798@mail.jlokier.co.uk> <20030930071005.GY729@actcom.co.il> <20030930074138.GG729@actcom.co.il> Reply-To: Miles Bader System-Type: i686-pc-linux-gnu Blat: Foop From: Miles Bader Date: 30 Sep 2003 16:59:56 +0900 In-Reply-To: <20030930074138.GG729@actcom.co.il> Message-ID: Lines: 14 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Muli Ben-Yehuda writes: > Ok, that's a pretty convincing argument for scraping that > version. I'll rewrite it to evaluate the arguments at compile time if > they're constants, which they are, in our case. Unless someone else > beats me to it, of course ;-) What's wrong with the macro version? The presence of a __ prefix suggests that it's only used in controlled circumstances anyway, so is validity-checking on the bit arguments really worthwhile? -miles -- The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. --Albert Einstein - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/