From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org,
Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@suse.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
x86@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] kernel.h: Add DO_ONCE statement expression macro
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 16:15:07 +0930 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200905251615.08414.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7b063fda0675875d51a5da49f59e89520d025eee.1242943463.git.joe@perches.com>
On Fri, 22 May 2009 08:30:22 am Joe Perches wrote:
> Add a DO_ONCE statement expression analogous to printk_once
> that executes any arbitrary statement exactly once.
>
> This will take the place of printk_once so that
> DO_ONCE(pr_<foo>) or any other statement performed
> a single time may be easily written.
If you're going to use a statement expression, was the intent to make
it usable for a test? If so, you want something vaguely like:
#define DO_ONCE(x...) ({ \
static bool __done = false; \
bool did = !__done; \
if (!__done) { \
x; \
__done = true; \
} \
did; \
})
Otherwise, why not just use a normal do {} while (0) ?
Anyway, statements in macros leave me uncomfortable. I prefer explicit
ONCE() macro which can be tested.
Cheers,
Rusty.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-25 10:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-21 23:00 [PATCH 0/3] Introduce and use DO_ONCE statement expression macro Joe Perches
2009-05-21 23:00 ` [PATCH 1/3] kernel.h: Add " Joe Perches
2009-05-21 23:27 ` Randy Dunlap
2009-05-21 23:32 ` Joe Perches
2009-05-21 23:36 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-21 23:41 ` Alan Cox
2009-05-22 0:27 ` Al Viro
2009-05-22 1:09 ` Joe Perches
2009-05-25 6:45 ` Rusty Russell [this message]
2009-05-26 2:42 ` Andrew Morton
2009-05-21 23:00 ` [PATCH 2/3] arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c: Use DO_ONCE & spelling fix Joe Perches
2009-05-21 23:26 ` Dave Jones
2009-05-21 23:34 ` Joe Perches
2009-05-21 23:47 ` Dave Jones
2009-05-21 23:52 ` Joe Perches
2009-05-21 23:00 ` [PATCH 3/3] kernel.h: Remove unused printk_once Joe Perches
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200905251615.08414.rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--to=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=cpufreq@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=gregkh@suse.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=travis@sgi.com \
--cc=venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com \
--cc=x86@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.