From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Randy.Dunlap" Subject: Re: [ACPI] Re: [PATCH] cleanup ACPI numa warnings Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 20:50:59 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040805205059.3fb67b71.rddunlap@osdl.org> References: <1091738798.22406.9.camel@tdi> <1091739702.31490.245.camel@nighthawk> <1091741142.22406.28.camel@tdi> <249150000.1091763309@[10.10.2.4]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <249150000.1091763309@[10.10.2.4]> To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: alex.williamson@hp.com, haveblue@us.ibm.com, acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 20:35:10 -0700 Martin J. Bligh wrote: | --Alex Williamson wrote (on Thursday, August 05, 2004 15:25:42 -0600): | | > On Thu, 2004-08-05 at 14:01 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: | >> On Thu, 2004-08-05 at 13:46, Alex Williamson wrote: | >> > +#ifdef ACPI_DEBUG_OUTPUT | >> > +#define acpi_print_srat_processor_affinity(header) { \ | >> > + struct acpi_table_processor_affinity *p = \ | >> > + (struct acpi_table_processor_affinity*) header; \ | >> > + ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, "SRAT Processor (id[0x%02x] " \ | >> > + "eid[0x%02x]) in proximity domain %d %s\n", \ | >> > + p->apic_id, p->lsapic_eid, p->proximity_domain, \ | >> > + p->flags.enabled?"enabled":"disabled")); } | >> > + | >> > +#define acpi_print_srat_memory_affinity(header) { \ | >> > + struct acpi_table_memory_affinity *p = \ | >> > + (struct acpi_table_memory_affinity*) header; \ | >> > + ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, "SRAT Memory (0x%08x%08x length " \ | >> > + "0x%08x%08x type 0x%x) in proximity domain %d %s%s\n",\ | >> > + p->base_addr_hi, p->base_addr_lo, p->length_hi, \ | >> > + p->length_lo, p->memory_type, p->proximity_domain, \ | >> > + p->flags.enabled ? "enabled" : "disabled", \ | >> > + p->flags.hot_pluggable ? " hot-pluggable" : "")); } | >> | >> Is there a reason that this can't be a normal function instead of a | >> 9-line #define? | > | > Well, it's 9 lines, but it boils down to one printk. I'm not sure | > putting it in a function would make it any more readable, long printks | > are ugly by design. Either way would work. | | Multi-line #defines are inherently eeeeevil ;-) I'd agree with Dave - static | inlines are the normal way to do this. That's surely just an opinion, right? 8;) If they are more than a single function (like printk), I might agree, but the Linux kernel has plenty of them already. Using a macro for a big printk() seems to makes sense. And there's nothing in CodingStyle that agrees with you that I could find. -- ~Randy