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.
| |