Re: + numa-generic-management-of-nodemasks-for-various-purposes.patch added to -mm tree

[Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>]

On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 04:59 -0700, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Lee Schermerhorn (via Andrew) wrote:
> > +static inline void node_set_state(int node, enum node_states state)
> > +{
> > +	__node_set(node, &node_states[state]);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void node_clear_state(int node, enum node_states state)
> > +{
> > +	__node_clear(node, &node_states[state]);
> > +}
> 
> 
> Lee - would you get the same result (same compiled binary code) with
> something like:
> 
> +static inline void node_set_state(int node, enum node_states state)
> +{
> +	node_set(node, node_states[state]);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void node_clear_state(int node, enum node_states state)
> +{
> +	node_clear(node, node_states[state]);
> +}
> 
> If so, then I're prefer the latter, as it doesn't depend on the strange
> #define wrapping an inline implementation of node_set and node_clear.
> 
> In other words, the latter looks 'simpler'.
> 

I'm OK with this, altho' I think Christoph was just following the lead
of the other node[s]_*() functions.  Care to submit a patch when you
return from vacation?

Christoph:  what do you think?

Lee