Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S263639AbVBEJLu@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S263639AbVBEJLu (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Sat, 5 Feb 2005 04:11:50 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264829AbVBEJLt
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Sat, 5 Feb 2005 04:11:49 -0500
Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:23272 "EHLO gate.crashing.org")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264094AbVBEJLC (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 5 Feb 2005 04:11:02 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PPC/PPC64: Introduce CPU_HAS_FEATURE() macro
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Olof Johansson <olof@austin.ibm.com>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@gmail.com>,
       linuxppc64-dev <linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org>,
       linuxppc-dev list <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
       Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>,
       Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, penberg@cs.helsinki.fi
In-Reply-To: <20050204172041.GA17586@austin.ibm.com>
References: <20050204072254.GA17565@austin.ibm.com>
	 <84144f0205020400172d89eddf@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20050204172041.GA17586@austin.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 20:08:53 +1100
Message-Id: <1107594534.30270.3.camel@gaston>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.3 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1820
Lines: 47

On Fri, 2005-02-04 at 11:20 -0600, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 10:17:48AM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > Please drop the CPU_FTR_##x macro magic as it makes grepping more
> > complicated. If the enum names are too long, just do s/CPU_FTR_/CPU_/g
> > or something similar. Also, could you please make this a static inline
> > function?

I tend to agree with Pekka...

> I considered that for a while, but decided against it because:
> 
> * cpu-has-feature(cpu-feature-foo) v cpu-has-feature(foo): I picked the
> latter for readability.

I don't think it really matters compared to the usefullness of grep, and
is still more readable than the old way...

> * Renaming CPU_FTR_<x> -> CPU_<x> makes it less obvious that
> it's actually a cpu feature it's describing (i.e. CPU_ALTIVEC vs
> CPU_FTR_ALTIVEC).

Agreed.

> * Renaming would clobber the namespace, CPU_* definitions are used in
> other places in the tree.
> * Can't make it an inline and still use the preprocessor concatenation.

I'd like to keep the constants as-is and have the stuff inline with no
macro trick as Pekka suggest since I did use grep on those things quite
often.

> That being said, you do have a point about grepability. However,
> personally I'd be more likely to look for CPU_HAS_FEATURE than the
> feature itself when reading the code, and would find that easily. The
> other way around (finding all uses of a feature) is harder, but the
> concatenation macro is right below the bit definitions and easy to spot.

No, when I grep, i'm looking for the feature itself...

Ben.


-
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/