From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754197AbYIHOd5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Sep 2008 10:33:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752168AbYIHOdt (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Sep 2008 10:33:49 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:41582 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751342AbYIHOds (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Sep 2008 10:33:48 -0400 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 16:33:35 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Cyrill Gorcunov Cc: "Maciej W. Rozycki" , "H. Peter Anvin" , LKML , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [RFC] x86: io-apic - convert DO_ACTION macro into function Message-ID: <20080908143335.GD10580@elte.hu> References: <20080907192625.GC7515@lenovo> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080907192625.GC7515@lenovo> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > Convert DO_ACTION macro into more obvious io_apic_modify_irq > function with callers > --- > > I found it more readable then original was. Especialy we could grep > the callers in normal way. It's just an attempt - free to drop this > patch. I hope I don't messed with all these masks :) So the question > is rather NOT about details but idea in general. yeah - getting rid of such macros is a very good idea in general. > io_apic.c | 102 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------------- > 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-) that's non-trivial impact. Did the .o md5sum survive this transformation just fine? (in theory gcc should generate the same code - but it doesnt always do that across macro->inline function changes, so it's hard to validate these kinds of changes.) Ingo