Re: [PATCH] cleanup ACPI numa warnings

[Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com>]

On Thu, 2004-08-05 at 13:46, Alex Williamson wrote:
> +#ifdef ACPI_DEBUG_OUTPUT
> +#define acpi_print_srat_processor_affinity(header) { \
> +	struct acpi_table_processor_affinity *p = \
> +	                      (struct acpi_table_processor_affinity*) header; \
> +	ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, "SRAT Processor (id[0x%02x] " \
> +	                 "eid[0x%02x]) in proximity domain %d %s\n", \
> +	                 p->apic_id, p->lsapic_eid, p->proximity_domain, \
> +	                 p->flags.enabled?"enabled":"disabled")); }
> +
> +#define acpi_print_srat_memory_affinity(header) { \
> +	struct acpi_table_memory_affinity *p = \
> +	                         (struct acpi_table_memory_affinity*) header; \
> +	ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, "SRAT Memory (0x%08x%08x length " \
> +	                 "0x%08x%08x type 0x%x) in proximity domain %d %s%s\n",\
> +	                 p->base_addr_hi, p->base_addr_lo, p->length_hi, \
> +	                 p->length_lo, p->memory_type, p->proximity_domain, \
> +	                 p->flags.enabled ? "enabled" : "disabled", \
> +	                 p->flags.hot_pluggable ? " hot-pluggable" : "")); }

Is there a reason that this can't be a normal function instead of a
9-line #define?

-- Dave