On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 09:56:07AM +0000, George Spelvin wrote: > 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. I like this idea! -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
