On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 06:07:11PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > Hmm. Now that I git-cloned the code I understand. And I can't recall why MK_IDENT() was > written this way, it simply doesn't look right. It looks to me as you simply wanted to avoid doing dynamic allocation and/or the cost of the hashing. > Probably can be fixed but I agree, lets > remove it. Probably yes, but yes btter to remove it. Thanks for your reply. -- Luc -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
