Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:55:31 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] kernel.h: Split out COUNT_ARGS() and CONCATENATE() |
| |
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 15:56:43 +0300 Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 03:21:19PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 13:24:54 +0300 Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > kernel.h is being used as a dump for all kinds of stuff for a long time. > > > The COUNT_ARGS() and CONCATENATE() macros may be used in some places > > > without need of the full kernel.h dependency train with it. > > > > > > Here is the attempt on cleaning it up by splitting out these macros(). > > > > > > --- a/include/linux/kernel.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/kernel.h > > > @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ > > > > > > #include <linux/stdarg.h> > > > #include <linux/align.h> > > > +#include <linux/args.h> > > > > A more energetic patch would have included args.h into each file which > > calls COUNT_ARGS() and CONCATENATE(), and not included args.h into > > kernel.h. And that appears to be very easy - only bpf uses these things? > > > > In fact these macros are so weird and ugly I'd be inclined to move them > > into some bpf header so we don't have to see them again. No > > args.h, which might avoid encouraging others to use them. > > We have more users than one
I cant find any?
> and a couple of users that reimplement this macro > under different names.
Where are these?
What the heck does it do and why is it so ugly and why isn't it documented. Shudder.
I suppose if there are other callers(?) then we could hide it in a countargs.h and not include that into kernel.h.
| |