On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Jim Rees <rees@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Sasha Levin wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Just some nitpicks.
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 02:45:57PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >> +/* Use hash_32 when possible to allow for fast 32bit hashing in 64bit kernels. */
> >> +#define hash_min(val, bits) \
> >> +({ \
> >> + sizeof(val) <= 4 ? \
> >> + hash_32(val, bits) : \
> >> + hash_long(val, bits); \
> >> +})
> >
> > Doesn't the above fit in 80 column. Why is it broken into multiple
> > lines? Also, you probably want () around at least @val. In general,
> > it's a good idea to add () around any macro argument to avoid nasty
> > surprises.
>
> It was broken to multiple lines because it looks nicer that way (IMO).
>
> If we wrap it with () it's going to go over 80, so it's going to stay
> broken down either way :)
>
> I would prefer the body be all on one line too. But shouldn't this be a
> static inline function?
We want sizeof(val), which wouldn't work in a static inline. We can
either wrap a static inline __hash_min() with a macro and pass that
size to it, but that's quite an overkill here, or we can add a size
parameter to hash_min(), but it would look awkward considering how
hash_32()/hash_64()/hash_long() look like.
Thanks,
Sasha
--
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>