Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 3 Jul 2006 10:13:12 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] genirq: ARM dyntick cleanup |
| |
On Sun, 2 Jul 2006, Andrew Morton wrote: > > The requirement "if you implement this then you must do so as a macro" is a > bit regrettable. The ARCH_HAS_HANDLE_DYNAMIC_TICK approach would eliminate > that requirement.
Btw, this is WRONG.
The whole "ARCH_HAS_XYZZY" is nothing but crap. It's totally unreadable, compared to the _much_ simpler
#ifndef xyzzy #define zyzzy() /* empty */ #endif
which is a hell of a lot more obvious to everybody involved, not to mention being a lot easier to "grep" for (try it - "grep xyzzy" ends up showing _exactly_ what is going on for cases like this, unlike the ARCH_HAS_XYZZY crap).
And no, it does not require implementing xyzzy as a macro AT ALL.
You can very easily just do
/* * We have a very complex xyzzy, we don't even want to * inline it! */ extern void xyxxy(...);
/* Tell the rest of the world that we do it! */ #define xyzzy xyzzy
and you're now all set. No need for a new stupid name like ARCH_HAS_XYZZY, which adds _nothing_ but unnecessary complexity ("What was the condition for using that symbol again?" and ungreppability).
WE SHOULD GET RID OF ARCH_HAS_XYZZY. It's a disease.
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/
| |