From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org,
Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@suse.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
x86@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] kernel.h: Add DO_ONCE statement expression macro
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 16:15:07 +0930 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200905251615.08414.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7b063fda0675875d51a5da49f59e89520d025eee.1242943463.git.joe@perches.com>
On Fri, 22 May 2009 08:30:22 am Joe Perches wrote:
> Add a DO_ONCE statement expression analogous to printk_once
> that executes any arbitrary statement exactly once.
>
> This will take the place of printk_once so that
> DO_ONCE(pr_<foo>) or any other statement performed
> a single time may be easily written.
If you're going to use a statement expression, was the intent to make
it usable for a test? If so, you want something vaguely like:
#define DO_ONCE(x...) ({ \
static bool __done = false; \
bool did = !__done; \
if (!__done) { \
x; \
__done = true; \
} \
did; \
})
Otherwise, why not just use a normal do {} while (0) ?
Anyway, statements in macros leave me uncomfortable. I prefer explicit
ONCE() macro which can be tested.
Cheers,
Rusty.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-25 10:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-21 23:00 [PATCH 0/3] Introduce and use " Joe Perches
2009-05-21 23:00 ` [PATCH 1/3] kernel.h: Add " Joe Perches
2009-05-21 23:27 ` Randy Dunlap
2009-05-21 23:32 ` Joe Perches
2009-05-21 23:36 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-21 23:41 ` Alan Cox
2009-05-22 0:27 ` Al Viro
2009-05-22 1:09 ` Joe Perches
2009-05-25 6:45 ` Rusty Russell [this message]
2009-05-26 2:42 ` Andrew Morton
2009-05-21 23:00 ` [PATCH 2/3] arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c: Use DO_ONCE & spelling fix Joe Perches
2009-05-21 23:26 ` Dave Jones
2009-05-21 23:34 ` Joe Perches
2009-05-21 23:47 ` Dave Jones
2009-05-21 23:52 ` Joe Perches
2009-05-21 23:00 ` [PATCH 3/3] kernel.h: Remove unused printk_once Joe Perches
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=200905251615.08414.rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--to=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=cpufreq@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=gregkh@suse.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=travis@sgi.com \
--cc=venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com \
--cc=x86@vger.kernel.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
Powered by JetHome