From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755620AbYERJNo (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 May 2008 05:13:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751513AbYERJNh (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 May 2008 05:13:37 -0400 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.171]:50089 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751184AbYERJNg (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 May 2008 05:13:36 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=TVupInBtJ2RJYcrfINgLYq5V30H2MyBN8rEsQGBpnrmuUmKdBRFOymRiGENlL7ar24UU0n2YkzZzNuYF8YDQaWMNDg6wowk6uEZwtUtYvQ5w5zqfZRNevfsEQd42k/eIFpy3duA8yECxBO96UM9eGfJ1cp12n6NNBE05J5Us7qw= Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 13:13:26 +0400 From: Cyrill Gorcunov To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Thomas Gleixner , "Maciej W. Rozycki" , Tom Spink , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , LKML , Jiri Slaby , Sam Ravnborg , Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [RFC] x86: merge nmi_32-64 to nmi.c Message-ID: <20080518091326.GD6948@cvg> References: <20080517192200.GA6914@cvg> <7b9198260805171328u555eec17t3597f3378edbda88@mail.gmail.com> <482FD9F2.8080204@goop.org> <20080518073804.GB6948@cvg> <482FE9CA.4090804@goop.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <482FE9CA.4090804@goop.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [Jeremy Fitzhardinge - Sun, May 18, 2008 at 09:33:14AM +0100] > Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: >> I think I would prefer Maciej's advice then but with capital >> letters (to easy distinguish them and point an attention) like >> >> #ifdef CONFG_X86_64 >> #define CPU_64 1 >> #else >> #define CPU_64 0 >> #endif > > The other problem in this case is that cpu_pda() doesn't exit for 32-bit, > so it probably won't compile anyway. But in general, I fully support using > if (constant) over #ifdef (?: not so much). > > J > yep, you're right - gcc doesn't throw it out but tries to evaluate in any case so this trick with () ? : ; would not work :( or we should define dummy types for this case... - Cyrill -