From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753905AbYIHOp3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Sep 2008 10:45:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752080AbYIHOpV (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Sep 2008 10:45:21 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.154]:17877 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750864AbYIHOpU (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Sep 2008 10:45:20 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=upFaCdSBDWDQ38mlOJKlguT6e0Uy9cNj6qSitSWDokjXl0HecpFc+Snc0xKOo8o6Gc 3JVQMRPYoB8OMW0SnSb13XVBSQJnQA6qhfrN0nUw59LHPPAlHZ9C18hidOOxpxpYUqqO 3PRxwA16Fs36xDzf1JFReHJA6rXQN/FJtUFSA= Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 18:42:42 +0400 From: Cyrill Gorcunov To: Ingo Molnar Cc: "Maciej W. Rozycki" , "H. Peter Anvin" , LKML , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [RFC] x86: io-apic - convert DO_ACTION macro into function Message-ID: <20080908144242.GA7278@lenovo> References: <20080907192625.GC7515@lenovo> <20080908143335.GD10580@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080908143335.GD10580@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [Ingo Molnar - Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 04:33:35PM +0200] | | * 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 | ok, then I continue to work on this. I think I better check assembly code to remain the same (in general since for example new for(;;) form is completely different - in old code is inspired by the macroses who could change 'entry' variable in theory - but now it will not be possible and not needed so we could use more 'eye-candy' for(;;) form). Thanks for comments. - Cyrill -