Messages in this thread |  | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | | Subject | Re: [rfc git pull] cpus4096 fixes, take 2 | | Date | Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:45:19 +1000 | |
On Tuesday 29 July 2008 06:57:00 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> +/*
> + * In cases where we take the address of the cpumask immediately,
> + * gcc optimizes it out (it's a constant) and there's no huge stack
> + * variable created:
> + */
> +#define cpumask_of_cpu(cpu) ({ *get_cpu_mask(cpu); })
Why use a statement expression here? Isn't (*get_cpu_mask(cpu)) sufficient?
Cheers,
Rusty.
|  |