On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 09:03:42AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > I think we should try to have a little fewer nested macros > > to evaluate here, right now this ends up expanding > > __pfn_to_phys, PFN_PHYS, PAGE_SHIFT, CONFIG_PAGE_SHIFT, > > page_to_pfn and __page_to_pfn. While the behavior is fine, > > modern gcc versions list all of those in an warning message > > if someone passes the wrong arguments. > > > > Changing the two macros above into inline functions > > would help as well, but may cause other problems. > > Doing them as inlines seems useful to me, let me throw that at > the buildbot and see if anything explodes. The inline version instantly blows up, so I'll try just open coding the phys to/from pfn translation instead.
