From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bitops kernel-doc: expand macro
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:38:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071024083811.661051f0.rdunlap@xenotime.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200710241800.19764.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:00:19 +1000 Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 October 2007 15:09, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
> >
> > Can we expand this macro definition, or should I look for a way to
> > fool^W teach kernel-doc about this?
> >
> > scripts/kernel-doc says:
> > Error(linux-2.6.24-rc1//include/asm-x86/bitops_32.h:188): cannot understand
> > prototype: 'test_and_set_bit_lock test_and_set_bit '
>
> Actually, it probably looks a bit nicer like this anyway. If you grep
> for it, then you can actually see the parameters...
>
> On third thoughts, an inline function might be the best thing to do,
> and also avoid setting a bad example. What do you think?
That's probably best, yes.
Would you do the honors?
> > Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
> > ---
> > include/asm-x86/bitops_32.h | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > --- linux-2.6.24-rc1.orig/include/asm-x86/bitops_32.h
> > +++ linux-2.6.24-rc1/include/asm-x86/bitops_32.h
> > @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ static inline int test_and_set_bit(int n
> > *
> > * This is the same as test_and_set_bit on x86
> > */
> > -#define test_and_set_bit_lock test_and_set_bit
> > +#define test_and_set_bit_lock(nr, addr) test_and_set_bit(nr, addr)
> >
> > /**
> > * __test_and_set_bit - Set a bit and return its old value
> > ---
---
~Randy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-24 15:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-24 5:09 Randy Dunlap
2007-10-24 8:00 ` Nick Piggin
2007-10-24 15:38 ` Randy Dunlap [this message]
2007-10-25 16:31 ` [PATCH v2] bitops kernel-doc: inline instead of macro Randy Dunlap
2007-10-25 16:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-10-25 16:55 ` Randy Dunlap
2007-10-25 17:05 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-10-25 20:48 ` Andrew Morton
2007-10-25 21:21 ` [PATCH v3] " Randy Dunlap
2007-10-25 21:27 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-10-25 21:27 ` [PATCH] x86 bitops: fix code style issues Randy Dunlap
2007-10-27 10:43 ` [PATCH v2] bitops kernel-doc: inline instead of macro Andy Whitcroft
2007-10-27 14:30 ` Andy Whitcroft
2007-10-27 18:48 ` H. Peter Anvin
2007-10-25 21:54 ` Nick Piggin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20071024083811.661051f0.rdunlap@xenotime.net \
--to=rdunlap@xenotime.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®