On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 12:35:55 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > Hmm... If (*swap)() is called recursively it means the change might increase > stack usage on 64-bit platforms. > > Am I missing something? Under what conceivable circumstance would someone write a recursive (*swap)() function? You're technically right, but the precondition is more fantastical than "if the U.K.'s parliament get their shit together before the 12th", so I have a hard time worrying about it. But you did make me think of something: the whole reason swap() takes a size argument is for the benefit of the (no longer existing) generic swap functions. All of the custom swap functions ignore it. So how about *deleting* the parameter instead? That simplifies everything. _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
