On Dec 18, 2007 7:32 PM, Frans Pop <elendil@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tuesday 18 December 2007, Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote: > > On Dec 18, 2007 6:54 PM, Frans Pop <elendil@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote: > > > > What's left in processor_32.h and processor_64.h cannot be cleanly > > > > integrated. However, it's just a couple of definitions. They are > > > > moved to processor.h around ifdefs, and the original files are > > > > deleted. Note that there's much less headers included in the final > > > > version. > > > > > > Either I must be missing something or this patch was corrupted somehow. > > > > neither. > > Note the else in the middle. It's just a mistake in the comment. > > Wouldn't an explicit second #ifdef block be a lot clearer (and improve > maintainability) in this case? > > An #else can easily be overlooked among other preprocessor commands or when > #ifdefs get nested. > I don't think so. a if-then-else kind of construction is very common, well expected, and heavily used in kernel. But even if I´m not right, this is functionally correct, and can be addressed in a later cleanup patch if you really want to. -- Glauber de Oliveira Costa. "Free as in Freedom" http://glommer.net "The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act." _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
