On Mon, 28 Jan 2013, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:58:11 -0800 (PST)
> Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> > +#define NUMA(x) (x)
> > +#define DO_NUMA(x) (x)
>
> Did we consider
>
> #define DO_NUMA do { (x) } while (0)
>
> ?
It didn't occur to me at all. I like that it makes more sense of
the DO_NUMA variant. Is it okay that, to work with the way I was
using it, we need "(x);" in there rather than just "(x)"?
>
> That could avoid some nasty config-dependent compilation issues.
>
> > +#else
> > +#define NUMA(x) (0)
[PATCH] ksm: trivial tidyups fix
Suggested by akpm: make DO_NUMA(x) do { (x); } while (0) more like the #else.
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/ksm.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- mmotm.org/mm/ksm.c 2013-01-27 09:55:45.000000000 -0800
+++ mmotm/mm/ksm.c 2013-01-28 16:50:25.772026446 -0800
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@
#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
#define NUMA(x) (x)
-#define DO_NUMA(x) (x)
+#define DO_NUMA(x) do { (x); } while (0)
#else
#define NUMA(x) (0)
#define DO_NUMA(x) do { } while (0)
--
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>