From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932627AbaHVQk6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:40:58 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f176.google.com ([209.85.214.176]:49038 "EHLO mail-ob0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932159AbaHVQk5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:40:57 -0400 Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:40:51 -0500 From: Tejun Heo To: Christoph Lameter Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Fengguang Wu , Rusty Russell , Motohiro Kosaki , Mike Travis Subject: Re: percpu: Define this_cpu_cpumask_var_t_ptr Message-ID: <20140822164051.GB15713@mtj.dyndns.org> References: <20140821222212.GA7996@mtj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, Christoph. On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 08:03:25PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > Its a pretty simple function (actually more a name substituion) so I > did not think it worth creating an inline function. Unless there are specific reasons like multi-type arg or breaking hellish definition order dependency, I think we're better off with inline functions, especially here, as the implementation will happily accept arguments of the wrong type. > _t is there because I wanted to include the full "ugly" name of the > variable to make it similarly ugly. It is needed to make the clear > distinction to "struct cpumask *" which does not have these issues. The compiler can enforce that rule easily if the interface functions are properly typed. I think it'd be far better to go with properly typed accessors with less unwieldy names. Thanks. -- tejun