Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86: Final unification of local_{32|64}.h

[Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>]

On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 14:48 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> No differences except for the defintion of local_add_return on X86_64. 
> >> The X86_32 version is just fine as it is protected with ifdef 
> >> CONFIG_M386 so use it directly.
> > 
> > thanks, i've applied your 4 patches to x86.git.
> > 
> > btw., now that we have a single unified file, it might make sense to fix 
> > these checkpatch complaints:
> > 
> >   total: 10 errors, 1 warnings, 257 lines checked
> > 
> > in case you are interested ;-)
> > 
> 
> Please pull them pending revision, they're broken (macros don't expand 
> inside strings...)
> 

Do you have a stylistic preference between these two options:

Option 1) Rely on CPP string constant concatenation

// possibly include trailing space here to avoid remembering
// leading space on the register names
# define _ASM_INC "incl" 

static inline void local_inc(local_t *l)
{
	__asm__ __volatile__(
		_ASM_INC " %0"
		:"+m" (l->a.counter));
}

Option 2) Macro Expansion

# define _ASM_INC(r) \"incl\ ##r\"

static inline void local_inc(local_t *l)
{
	__asm__ __volatile__(
		_ASM_INC(%0);
		:"+m" (l->a.counter));
}

Or some other suggestion.

Harvey