Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 14:19:10 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@redhat.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
       Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>,
       Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>,
       Jim Keniston <jkenisto@us.ibm.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Introduce REX prefix helper for kprobes
Message-ID: <20071230131910.GE16946@elte.hu>
References: <1198466795.6323.12.camel@brick> <47773C2D.8070600@redhat.com> <47774314.9080406@zytor.com> <47775062.4070300@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <47775062.4070300@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1120
Lines: 25


* Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@redhat.com> wrote:

> > Why is a macro better than an inline, and why the odd mIXed case?
> 
> I thought we can use macro because it just check a bit mask. And if we 
> use this as a macro, it will be defined in #ifdef block at the top of 
> kprobes.c. It is simple in this case. I know the inline is better than 
> the macro, it can check the type of arguments. If you would like to 
> use inline, how about this?

yes, we prefer inlines for just about everything. We have reoccuring 
regressions due to macro side-effects, lack of type and argument 
checking - and the simplest maintenance policy is to just never 
introduce new macros. Macros also played an active role in creating our 
current include file dependencies spaghetti. So unless there are very, 
very strong reasons in favor of adding a macro, please always use 
inlines.

	Ingo
--
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/