On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> Now, does removing the macro completely change the output code ?
> I think that if something written like this produces the same
> code, it would be easier to read :
>
> #define for_each_cpu_mask(cpu, mask) \
> for ((cpu) = 0; (cpu) < NR_CPUS; (cpu)++) { \
> unsigned long __bits = (mask).bits[0] >> (cpu); \
> if (!__bits) \
> break; \
> if (!__bits & 1) \
> continue; \
> else
Absolutely, but now it has a dangling "{" that didn't get closed. So the
above would definitely be more readable, it just doesn't actually work.
Unless you'd do the "end_for_each_cpu" define (to close the statement),
and update the 300+ places that use this. Which might well be worth it.
So the subtle "break from the middle of a statement expression" was just a
rather hacky way to avoid having to change all the users of this macro.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
