lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: dealing with excessive includes


On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Al Viro wrote:
>
> +#define lock_super(x) do { \
> + struct super_block *sb = x; \
> + get_fs_excl(); \
> + mutex_lock(&sb->s_lock); \
> +} while(0)

Don't do this. The "x" passed in may be "sb", and then you end up with
bogus code.

I think the solution to these kinds of things is either
- just bite the bullet, and make it out-of-line. A function call isn't
that expensive, and is sometimes actually cheaper due to I$ issues.
- have a separate trivial header file, and only include it for people who
actually need these things (very few files, actually - it's usually
just one file per filesystem)

In this case, since it's _so_ simple, and since it's _so_ specialized, I
think #2 is the right one. Normally, uninlining would be.

Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.110 / U:0.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site