Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754957AbYKJXio (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:38:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752920AbYKJXif (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:38:35 -0500 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.124]:64866 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752540AbYKJXie (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:38:34 -0500 Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:38:29 -0500 (EST) From: Steven Rostedt X-X-Sender: rostedt@gandalf.stny.rr.com To: Andrew Morton cc: Nicolas Pitre , mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk, dhowells@redhat.com, mingo@elte.hu, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ralf@linux-mips.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, davem@davemloft.net, mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] clarify usage expectations for cnt32_to_63() In-Reply-To: <20081110152221.64948d23.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Message-ID: References: <9405.1226101315@redhat.com> <20081108001555.GE18378@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20081109022549.GA18508@Krystal> <20081109064855.GA23782@Krystal> <20081109162250.GB10181@Krystal> <20081109204256.89ab7925.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20081110135850.0d620f3c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20081110152221.64948d23.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 930 Lines: 28 On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:15:32 -0500 (EST) > Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > > > > This references its second argument twice, which can cause correctness > > > or efficiency problems. > > > > > > There is no reason that this had to be implemented in cpp. > > > Implementing it in C will fix the above problem. > > > > No, it won't, for correctness and efficiency reasons. > > > > And I've explained why already. > > I'd be very surprised if you've really found a case where a macro is > faster than an inlined function. I don't think that has happened > before. But that's the way my Grandpa did it. With macros! -- Steve -- 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/