On 06/20, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
>
> 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.
This is clear ;) what is not clear is why I didn't do, say,
#define MK_IDENT(s) ({ \
static struct { \
struct ident ident; \
char name[sizeof(s)]; \
} ident = { \
.ident.len = sizeof(s)-1, \
.name = s, \
}; \
&ident.ident; \
})
probably because I wanted to avoid __attribute__((packed)) in struct ident,
not sure.
> > Probably can be fixed but I agree, lets
> > remove it.
>
> Probably yes, but yes btter to remove it.
Agreed.
Oleg.
--
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
