lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [rfc git pull] cpus4096 fixes, take 2
Date
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.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-07-29 07:25    [W:0.084 / U:5.736 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site