From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757083Ab2C0Wx7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:53:59 -0400 Received: from beauty.rexursive.com ([150.101.121.179]:36621 "EHLO beauty.rexursive.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754072Ab2C0Wx6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:53:58 -0400 Message-ID: <1332888836.2040.20.camel@shrek.rexursive.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5]: Hibernation: lower/better control the amount of pages used for buffering From: Bojan Smojver To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linux PM mailing list Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:53:56 +1100 In-Reply-To: <201203280054.01695.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <1332887486.2040.10.camel@shrek.rexursive.com> <201203280047.33501.rjw@sisk.pl> <1332888231.2040.14.camel@shrek.rexursive.com> <201203280054.01695.rjw@sisk.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3 (3.2.3-2.fc16) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 00:54 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > That's better, but what's wrong with a static inline, actually? Nothing, if that is what is required to get the patch accepted. :-) I just thought that given that nr_free_pages() is already a macro with no side effects, it would make sense for reqd_free_pages() or REQD_FREE_PAGES to remain a macro. But, if you insist on static inline, I'll do static inline. Let me know. -- Bojan