* Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:39:16PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 06:26 +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > > Your DO_ONCE(....) parses as "what the fuck is that?" followed by > > > grepping for definition, and the cost is much higher. > > > > So what do you suggest? > > > > #define pr_info_once(fmt, args...) printk_once(KERN_INFO pr_fmt(fmt), ##args) > > #define pr_warning_once(fmt, args...) printk_once(KERN_WARNING pr_fmt(fmt), ##args) > > etc > > That would be much saner. Agreed. The *_once() namespace meme is intuitive and easily understood, and we use it in a couple of places in the kernel and extend it on an as-needed basis for reoccuring (and boring and distracting) once-flag C code spam. We apply it to 'boring to begin with' constructs: printing a message or a warning, etc. So if a kernel coder sees a _once() or _ONCE() construct it can be assumed almost straight away that the code there is largely uninteresting from a code logic POV. DO_ONCE() on the other hand is non-intuitive as it is a control structure that can be applied to _any_ code construct - interesting and uninteresting alike. For anything truly interesting that is not a kernel library/facility i dont want it to be hidden and abstracted away in 98% of the cases, i want to see the raw C form of it. Otherwise we might as well write the kernel in C++. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
