Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:50:14 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -mm] mm: Unify pte_to_pgoff and pgoff_to_pte helpers |
| |
* Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 01:08:56AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > > > Can it be written in C with types and proper variable names and such > > > > radical stuff? > > > > > > Could you elaborate? You mean inline helper or macro with type checks? > > > > /* > > * description goes here > > */ > > static inline pteval_t pte_bfop(pteval_t val, int rightshift, ...) > > { > > ... > > } > > > > So much better! We really should only implement code in a macro if it > > *has* to be done as a macro and I don't think that's the case here? > > Well, I'll have to check if it really doesn't generate additional > instructions in generated code, since it's hotpath. I'll ping back once > things are done.
An __always_inline should never do that.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |