This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


[Xen-devel] Re: [RFC PATCH 15/35] subarch support for controlling interr

To: Christian Limpach <Christian.Limpach@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: [RFC PATCH 15/35] subarch support for controlling interrupt delivery
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 12:54:26 +0200
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ian Pratt <ian.pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@xxxxxxxxxx>, Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Wed, 10 May 2006 03:55:01 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20060510103520.GX7834@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <20060509084945.373541000@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <200605092356.28818.ak@xxxxxxx> <20060510103520.GX7834@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.9.1
es, which is why I measured that one as well.
> Now, the original concern was that we have the five operations implemented
> as multi-line macros and doing a hybrid solution doesn't really address
> that.

If it's straight-forward to convert to an inline do it. If not keep
it as a macro. After all code style is just a tool, not something
self serving.

> Also, it's not quite clear to me what's the best way to turn three of
> the five into functions, whether inline or not.
> For measuring the sizes, I did the following:
> add void ___restore_flags(unsigned long *x) with the implementation
> and then:
> #define __restore_flags(x) ___restore_flags(&(x))

Yes that is the standard way to do it 

> Alternatively, would it make sense to change __restore_flags to take
> a pointer to flags instead?  That would be quite an invasive change...



Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>