Re: [PATCH 4/8] asm-generic: add atomic-instrumented.h

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>]

* Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:

> With some minimal CPP, it can be a lot more manageable:
> 
> ----
> #define INSTR_ATOMIC_XCHG(order)					\
> static __always_inline int atomic_xchg##order(atomic_t *v, int i)	\
> {									\
> 	kasan_check_write(v, sizeof(*v));				\
> 	arch_atomic_xchg##order(v, i);					\
> }
> 
> #define INSTR_ATOMIC_XCHG()
> 
> #ifdef arch_atomic_xchg_relaxed
> INSTR_ATOMIC_XCHG(_relaxed)
> #define atomic_xchg_relaxed atomic_xchg_relaxed
> #endif
> 
> #ifdef arch_atomic_xchg_acquire
> INSTR_ATOMIC_XCHG(_acquire)
> #define atomic_xchg_acquire atomic_xchg_acquire
> #endif
> 
> #ifdef arch_atomic_xchg_relaxed
> INSTR_ATOMIC_XCHG(_relaxed)
> #define atomic_xchg_relaxed atomic_xchg_relaxed
> #endif

Yeah, small detail: the third one wants to be _release, right?

> Is there any objection to some light CPP usage as above for adding the
> {relaxed,acquire,release} variants?

No objection from me to that way of writing it, this still looks very readable, 
and probably more readable than the verbose variants. It's similar in style to 
linux/atomic.h which has a good balance of C versus CPP.

What I objected to was the deep nested code generation approach in the original 
patch.

CPP is fine in many circumstances, but there's a level of (ab-)use where it 
becomes counterproductive.

Thanks,

	Ingo

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>