linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
To: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Stuart Yoder <stuart.yoder@freescale.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PPC: use CURRENT_THREAD_INFO instead of open coded assembly
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 23:34:21 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <23F3EB4C-799C-41EF-BAB8-360DF220FC62@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FF21343.20408@freescale.com>


On 02.07.2012, at 23:31, Scott Wood wrote:

> On 07/02/2012 04:27 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>=20
>> On 02.07.2012, at 23:26, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>=20
>>> On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 22:59 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>> This should go into an #ifdef __ASSEMBLY__ block, right? :)
>>>=20
>>> We almost never use #ifdef __ASSEMBLY__, we use it the other way
>>> around, to prevent C stuff from being included in assembly. The
>>> other way around is legit since things might be used in inline asm
>>> for example.
>>=20
>> I'm not sure I want to see this bit of code used as is in inline asm
>> :). I don't even think it's possible, since it's a full statement.
>> Either way, it's safer with the guard.
>=20
> Safer from what?  It won't be expanded unless referenced.  How is this
> better than putting ifdefs on #includes, prototypes, struct =
definitions,
> etc.?  The ifdef is just clutter.

Well, it'd make it easier to read the errors resulting of it. Calling =
CURRENT_THREAD_INFO from within C code would throw random compiler =
errors at you that are quite unintelligible, while a missing definition =
would be a reasonably obvious thing to fix, no?

Either way, not married to this. I just find it cleaner to not expose =
something as a define that wouldn't work in the first place.


Alex

      reply	other threads:[~2012-07-02 21:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-07-02 20:56 [PATCH] PPC: use CURRENT_THREAD_INFO instead of open coded assembly Stuart Yoder
2012-07-02 20:59 ` Alexander Graf
2012-07-02 21:26   ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2012-07-02 21:27     ` Alexander Graf
2012-07-02 21:31       ` Scott Wood
2012-07-02 21:34         ` Alexander Graf [this message]

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=23F3EB4C-799C-41EF-BAB8-360DF220FC62@suse.de \
    --to=agraf@suse.de \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=scottwood@freescale.com \
    --cc=stuart.yoder@freescale.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).