From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched: INIT_PREEMPT_COUNT Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 11:32:42 +0200 Message-ID: <1247304762.7529.51.camel@twins> References: <20090710125755.559739294@chello.nl> <20090710130125.037018244@chello.nl> <200907101518.13894.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from viefep15-int.chello.at ([62.179.121.35]:17363 "EHLO viefep15-int.chello.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751352AbZGKJcx (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Jul 2009 05:32:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200907101518.13894.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Matt Mackall , Anton Vorontsov , Andrew Morton , oleg@redhat.com, mingo@elte.hu, tony.luck@intel.com, rth@twiddle.net, geert@linux-m68k.org On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 15:18 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Friday 10 July 2009 06:57:56 am Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > +#define INIT_PREEMPT_COUNT (1) > > If the parentheses are useful or necessary, I need to be > educated about why. They look like superfluous paranoia to me. They are strictly speaking superfluous, but since I already knew I'd be adding a term I added them.