On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 02:40:24PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:12:39 +0000 > Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The current definitions for count_vm_numa_events() is wrong for > > !CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING as the following would miss the side-effect. > > > > count_vm_numa_events(NUMA_FOO, bar++); > > Stupid macros. > I know but static inlines are unsuitable in this case. > > There are no such users of count_vm_numa_events() but it is a potential > > pitfall. This patch fixes it and converts count_vm_numa_event() so that > > the definitions look similar. > > Confused. The patch doesn't alter count_vm_numa_event(). No matter. > Nuts. When I wrote that line in the changelog, it was because I had converted both to a static inline but that fails to compile if !CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING because NUMA_PTE_UPDATES is not defined. === There are no such users of count_vm_numa_events() but this patch fixes it as it is a potential pitfall. Ideally both would be converted to static inline but NUMA_PTE_UPDATES is not defined if !CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING and creating dummy constants just to have a static inline would be similarly clumsy. ==== -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- 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>