On 21/09/2009 17:49, "George Dunlap" <dunlapg@umich.edu> wrote:
> I hope I''m not bikeshedding here
> (http://catb.org/jargon/html/B/bikeshedding.html), but I''m not
really
> happy with the cpu_*() macros in cpumask.h adding ampersands before
> the arguments. In C (as opposed to C++), passing a non-pointer
> generally means that no values are going to be changed. Other than
> Linux similarity, is there a good reason to do this in a macro, rather
> than just having the caller provide the &? Would anyone object to me
> submitting a patch to change that?
>
> (A patch to change it looks to be rather big and boring, so I want to
> talk about it first before doing it...)
I somewhat agree about the pointless macro-ification in cpumask.h, but I
don''t care enough about this to diverge from the original Linux
definitions.
The cpumask macros which modify the given mask are named to make it pretty
obvious. We''ll live with it; it''s not really that annoying.
-- Keir
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel