From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bitops kernel-doc: expand macro
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:00:19 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200710241800.19764.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071023220959.a359d57d.rdunlap@xenotime.net>
On Wednesday 24 October 2007 15:09, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
>
> Can we expand this macro definition, or should I look for a way to
> fool^W teach kernel-doc about this?
>
> scripts/kernel-doc says:
> Error(linux-2.6.24-rc1//include/asm-x86/bitops_32.h:188): cannot understand
> prototype: 'test_and_set_bit_lock test_and_set_bit '
Actually, it probably looks a bit nicer like this anyway. If you grep
for it, then you can actually see the parameters...
On third thoughts, an inline function might be the best thing to do,
and also avoid setting a bad example. What do you think?
>
> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
> ---
> include/asm-x86/bitops_32.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> --- linux-2.6.24-rc1.orig/include/asm-x86/bitops_32.h
> +++ linux-2.6.24-rc1/include/asm-x86/bitops_32.h
> @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ static inline int test_and_set_bit(int n
> *
> * This is the same as test_and_set_bit on x86
> */
> -#define test_and_set_bit_lock test_and_set_bit
> +#define test_and_set_bit_lock(nr, addr) test_and_set_bit(nr, addr)
>
> /**
> * __test_and_set_bit - Set a bit and return its old value
> ---
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-24 8:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-24 5:09 [PATCH] bitops kernel-doc: expand macro Randy Dunlap
2007-10-24 8:00 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2007-10-24 15:38 ` Randy Dunlap
2007-10-25 16:31 ` [PATCH v2] bitops kernel-doc: inline instead of macro Randy Dunlap
2007-10-25 16:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-10-25 16:55 ` Randy Dunlap
2007-10-25 17:05 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-10-25 20:48 ` Andrew Morton
2007-10-25 21:21 ` [PATCH v3] " Randy Dunlap
2007-10-25 21:27 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-10-25 21:27 ` [PATCH] x86 bitops: fix code style issues Randy Dunlap
2007-10-27 10:43 ` [PATCH v2] bitops kernel-doc: inline instead of macro Andy Whitcroft
2007-10-27 14:30 ` Andy Whitcroft
2007-10-27 18:48 ` H. Peter Anvin
2007-10-25 21:54 ` Nick Piggin
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=200710241800.19764.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--to=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rdunlap@xenotime.net \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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