From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261199AbUJYRHh (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:07:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262113AbUJYRDQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:03:16 -0400 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:44931 "EHLO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262090AbUJYRCj (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:02:39 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:02:16 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Andi Kleen , torvalds@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/17] Generic backward compatibility includes for 4level Message-ID: <20041025170216.GA9142@wotan.suse.de> References: <417CAA05.mail3Y411778M@wotan.suse.de> <20041025103926.A31632@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20041025160606.GA26306@verdi.suse.de> <1098723034.2798.35.camel@laptop.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1098723034.2798.35.camel@laptop.fenrus.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 06:50:34PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > > > Don't we normally add do { } while (0) after empty macros which look like > > > a function? > > > > iirc Rusty tried to come up with an example some time ago where it actually > > made a difference, but failed. But I can change it. > > > if (foo) > bar(); > else > pml4_ERROR(x); > something_else(); Doesn't make any difference. Try it. With a double else it may make a difference, but that is extremly bad style imho and better resolved with a {}. Also you'll get a clear compile error. -Andi