From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/3] x86/boot: Add acpitb.c to parse acpi tables Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 11:46:55 +0200 Message-ID: <20181012094655.GB12328@zn.tnic> References: <20181010084119.17539-1-fanc.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <20181010084119.17539-2-fanc.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <20181011105708.GB25435@zn.tnic> <20181012093638.GA1898@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181012093638.GA1898@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Chao Fan Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, keescook@chromium.org, bhe@redhat.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net, lenb@kernel.org, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, indou.takao@jp.fujitsu.com, caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 05:36:38PM +0800, Chao Fan wrote: > Prefer to compile out entire functions, rather than portions of functions or > portions of expressions. Rather than putting an ifdef in an expression, factor > out part or all of the expression into a separate helper function and apply the > conditional to that function. > > So I am puzzled. If my understanding is wrong, please let me know. If you do it the way I suggested, you simply have one ifdeffery branch less. And ifdeffery is ugly. So less clutter. Also, this way you do compile out entire functions too. HTH. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.