Re: [PATCH] cleanup ACPI numa warnings

Martin J. Bligh
2004-08-06T03:35:10Z

--Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@hp.com> wrote (on Thursday, August 05, 2004 15:25:42 -0600):

> On Thu, 2004-08-05 at 14:01 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On Thu, 2004-08-05 at 13:46, Alex Williamson wrote:
>> > +#ifdef ACPI_DEBUG_OUTPUT
>> > +#define acpi_print_srat_processor_affinity(header) { \
>> > + struct acpi_table_processor_affinity *p = \
>> > + (struct acpi_table_processor_affinity*) header; \
>> > + ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, "SRAT Processor (id[0x%02x] " \
>> > + "eid[0x%02x]) in proximity domain %d %s\n", \
>> > + p->apic_id, p->lsapic_eid, p->proximity_domain, \
>> > + p->flags.enabled?"enabled":"disabled")); }
>> > +
>> > +#define acpi_print_srat_memory_affinity(header) { \
>> > + struct acpi_table_memory_affinity *p = \
>> > + (struct acpi_table_memory_affinity*) header; \
>> > + ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, "SRAT Memory (0x%08x%08x length " \
>> > + "0x%08x%08x type 0x%x) in proximity domain %d %s%s\n",\
>> > + p->base_addr_hi, p->base_addr_lo, p->length_hi, \
>> > + p->length_lo, p->memory_type, p->proximity_domain, \
>> > + p->flags.enabled ? "enabled" : "disabled", \
>> > + p->flags.hot_pluggable ? " hot-pluggable" : "")); }
>>
>> Is there a reason that this can't be a normal function instead of a
>> 9-line #define?
>
> Well, it's 9 lines, but it boils down to one printk. I'm not sure
> putting it in a function would make it any more readable, long printks
> are ugly by design. Either way would work.

Multi-line #defines are inherently eeeeevil ;-) I'd agree with Dave - static
inlines are the normal way to do this.

M.