On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 08:43:39AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > With some minimal CPP, it can be a lot more manageable:
> >
> > ----
> > #define INSTR_ATOMIC_XCHG(order) \
> > static __always_inline int atomic_xchg##order(atomic_t *v, int i) \
> > { \
> > kasan_check_write(v, sizeof(*v)); \
> > arch_atomic_xchg##order(v, i); \
> > }
> >
> > #define INSTR_ATOMIC_XCHG()
> >
> > #ifdef arch_atomic_xchg_relaxed
> > INSTR_ATOMIC_XCHG(_relaxed)
> > #define atomic_xchg_relaxed atomic_xchg_relaxed
> > #endif
> >
> > #ifdef arch_atomic_xchg_acquire
> > INSTR_ATOMIC_XCHG(_acquire)
> > #define atomic_xchg_acquire atomic_xchg_acquire
> > #endif
> >
> > #ifdef arch_atomic_xchg_relaxed
> > INSTR_ATOMIC_XCHG(_relaxed)
> > #define atomic_xchg_relaxed atomic_xchg_relaxed
> > #endif
>
> Yeah, small detail: the third one wants to be _release, right?
Yes; my bad.
> > Is there any objection to some light CPP usage as above for adding the
> > {relaxed,acquire,release} variants?
>
> No objection from me to that way of writing it, this still looks very readable,
> and probably more readable than the verbose variants. It's similar in style to
> linux/atomic.h which has a good balance of C versus CPP.
Great. I'll follow the above pattern when adding the ordering variants.
> What I objected to was the deep nested code generation approach in the original
> patch.
>
> CPP is fine in many circumstances, but there's a level of (ab-)use where it
> becomes counterproductive.
Sure, that makes sense to me.
Thanks,
Mark.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
