Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:26:30 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: OOPS: 2.6.16-rc6 cpufreq_conservative |
| |
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > Now, does removing the macro completely change the output code ? > I think that if something written like this produces the same > code, it would be easier to read : > > #define for_each_cpu_mask(cpu, mask) \ > for ((cpu) = 0; (cpu) < NR_CPUS; (cpu)++) { \ > unsigned long __bits = (mask).bits[0] >> (cpu); \ > if (!__bits) \ > break; \ > if (!__bits & 1) \ > continue; \ > else
Absolutely, but now it has a dangling "{" that didn't get closed. So the above would definitely be more readable, it just doesn't actually work.
Unless you'd do the "end_for_each_cpu" define (to close the statement), and update the 300+ places that use this. Which might well be worth it.
So the subtle "break from the middle of a statement expression" was just a rather hacky way to avoid having to change all the users of this macro.
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/
| |