 Home |
Products |
Support |
Community |
News |
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] cpu_*(), #define, and &
| To: | xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | [Xen-devel] cpu_*(), #define, and & |
| From: | George Dunlap <dunlapg@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:49:08 +0100 |
| Delivery-date: | Mon, 21 Sep 2009 09:49:34 -0700 |
| Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=mXqixSdHvk94HZ0oXb5Eoj6Bkd6k76un9dXMKGKXxvM=; b=Gu9KGGMWCjhO3azdZAi6ZKQIONtXJp8A5+Arb2CffA2u6DCX37HM8nvtiV7jN4g56K PQ2vaVBNW0sJ8LqvHZGj67Zm2rLLCyUFGn8+NZXZyuqVpYfxFFfHBN/OkSzemi/DUsJM xzUT2rBx3VkcJR/jHL41ZOm1pwaJv0wXUJ4tY= |
| Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; b=w+0Fif9GiIkG9Vqo2TaJdrKFa3xQmXGjqB3rVtxnIqtdLD4reMeZ2uMLNDmwiEKkaX dKsJbh4yPItdolVgOk/bnLC4HZzOPzElw1dlg8uo21dMcql+HSJJ6QZFimvVA/AZaEiX tZWWePmESMtxge6TQmR91+EZn/1gqTNUnueh4= |
| Envelope-to: | www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| 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/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
| List-unsubscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
| Sender: | xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
I hope I'm not bikeshedding here (http://catb.org/jargon/html/B/bikeshedding.html), but I'm not really happy with the cpu_*() macros in cpumask.h adding ampersands before the arguments. In C (as opposed to C++), passing a non-pointer generally means that no values are going to be changed. Other than Linux similarity, is there a good reason to do this in a macro, rather than just having the caller provide the &? Would anyone object to me submitting a patch to change that? (A patch to change it looks to be rather big and boring, so I want to talk about it first before doing it...) -George _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Xen-devel] Is there a way to get notification, when a domain shutdown/restarts, Bruce Edge |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: [Xen-devel] rdtscP and xen (and maybe the app-tsc answer I've been looking for), Dan Magenheimer |
| Previous by Thread: | [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: allow IRQs to work without APIC again, Jan Beulich |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Xen-devel] cpu_*(), #define, and &, Keir Fraser |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
