On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 01:27:49PM -0800, Rao Shoaib wrote:
> On 01/04/2018 12:35 PM, Rao Shoaib wrote:
> > As far as your previous comments are concerned, only the following one
> > has not been addressed. Can you please elaborate as I do not understand
> > the comment. The code was expanded because the new macro expansion check
> > fails. Based on Matthew Wilcox's comment I have reverted rcu_head_name
> > back to rcu_head.
> It turns out I did not remember the real reason for the change. With the
> macro rewritten, using rcu_head as a macro argument does not work because it
> conflicts with the name of the type 'struct rcu_head' used in the macro. I
> have renamed the macro argument to rcu_name.
>
> Shoaib
> >
> > > +#define kfree_rcu(ptr, rcu_head_name) \
> > > + do { \
> > > + typeof(ptr) __ptr = ptr; \
> > > + unsigned long __off = offsetof(typeof(*(__ptr)), \
> > > + rcu_head_name); \
> > > + struct rcu_head *__rptr = (void *)__ptr + __off; \
> > > + __kfree_rcu(__rptr, __off); \
> > > + } while (0)
> >
> > why do you want to open code this?
But why are you changing this macro at all? If it was to avoid the
double-mention of "ptr", then you haven't done that.
--
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>
