From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
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>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
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 19:42:21 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090525194221.8fd081c8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7b063fda0675875d51a5da49f59e89520d025eee.1242943463.git.joe@perches.com>
On Thu, 21 May 2009 16:00:22 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> +/*
> + * Do something once (analogous to WARN_ONCE() et al):
> + */
> +#define DO_ONCE(x...) ({ \
> + static bool __done = false; \
> + \
> + if (!__done) { \
> + x; \
> + __done = true; \
> + } \
> +})
Every single call site for this macro will be mind-bogglingly ugly and
complex callers won't look like C at all.
It would be much better to replace
DO_ONCE(code-sequence);
with
if (ONCE()) {
code-sequence;
}
I think that's fairly natural and clear and will allow us to clean up a
large number of callsites many of which do the same thing in different
ways, some of them buggily.
And yeah, if this is to be core kernel infrastructure then the default
implementation shouldn't be racy on SMP/preempt.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-26 2:43 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
2009-05-26 2:42 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
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=20090525194221.8fd081c8.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--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=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--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.